Evidence Item - v0.7
Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)
E-EAAN-PLANTINGA
Visual overview: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism visual overview
Classification
- Evidence ID
- E-EAAN-PLANTINGA
- Corpus/version
- v0.7
- Stage
- stage2
- Category
- Epistemology
- Major category
- Philosophy
- Sub-category
- Reason / Public Testability
- BF status
- ready
- Scoring label
- Scored row with active Bayes factors
Navigation
Primary Datum
Datum: Plantinga's EAAN argues that naturalism plus unguided evolution may undercut confidence in truth-tracking reason.
Scoring / Hypothesis Pressure
| Hypothesis | log10BF | Min | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
H-DEISM | 0.02 | -0.02 | 0.06 | Deism can ground rational order weakly but does not add much beyond generic creator order. |
H-GOD | 0.1 | 0.03 | 0.17 | EAAN-style reliability concerns modestly favor a rational personal ground, capped because naturalist replies are substantial. |
H-IDEALISM | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.13 | Mind-first frameworks can make truth-tracking reason less surprising, but the argument is not uniquely idealist. |
H-NATURALISM | -0.06 | -0.12 | 0 | If unguided evolution plus naturalism undercuts reliable cognition, naturalism receives modest pressure; selection-for-truth replies cap the debit. |
Dependency / Cap Metadata
- dependency_cluster_id
- reason_rational_reliability
- dependency_cluster_role
- sibling_support
- dependency_cluster
- reason_rational_reliability
- dependency_role
- sibling_support
- cap_profile
- moderate_semi_independent
- evidence_function
- context_child
- directness
- supporting
Counter-Pressure
- title
- Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) is a bounded signal, not a standalone proof.
- text
- The strongest caution is overuse. Evolutionary and naturalistic accounts can explain many cognitive functions, so the pressure must be stated carefully. This row should be read inside its dependency family, not treated as an isolated demonstration of God, Christ, or the final synthesis.
- path
- Start with what the row actually shows, then name what it does not show. Use it to ask whether truth-tracking reason is merely useful behavior or a sign of a deeper rational order.
Apologetic Note
- label
- Bounded positive signal
- title
- Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) asks where reason has a home.
- key point
- If both naturalism and unguided evolution are true, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliably truth-tracking is low or inscrutable. The positive signal is that truth-directed reason, public evidence, and responsible inference seem more at home in a reality grounded in Logos than in accidental usefulness alone.
- conversation move
- Do not say non-Christians cannot reason. Ask what worldview best grounds the reliability, normativity, and truth-aim of reason that every argument already depends on.
- caveat
- Treat this as a bounded positive signal: it gives real help to the Christian map while leaving live pressure for the wider case. Do not turn epistemology into a cheap gotcha. The point is borrowed capital and whole-field coherence, not intellectual one-upmanship.
Caveats / Notes
- Cap notes
- This row belongs to the reason/revelation epistemology family. It supports staged coherence pressure and should be assessed with related epistemology rows.
- Cap profile note
- Semi-independent convergence rows are capped, but not treated as exact duplicates.
- Cluster note
- Reason/induction cap: this row is partially dependent with other reason, math, intelligibility, and consciousness rows; do not stack as an independent proof of H-GOD without overlap discount.
Citations
- Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function.
- Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies.
Recommended Citation
The Signal Evidence Dataset, "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)," Evidence ID: E-EAAN-PLANTINGA, Version 0.7. Accessed [access date]. https://logos-signal.org/evidence/E-EAAN-PLANTINGA/
Machine-Readable Source
This page is generated from the public evidence mirror without recalculating or changing scores.