a while back i was listening to an old episode of the non prophets (back when it was just matt and dennis) and an anti-evolution argument came up that i heard again in another non-ACA related podcast. I haven't heard the argument since, but i do think it's worth raising from the dead because it's just too beautiful to let die.
the argument, at least in the form i'm familiar with, was brought up by alvin plantinga in a lecture tour he was doing back in '03 titled "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism." the gist of the argument is this:
natural selection does not care whether or not a belief is true, it only cares whether or not it is useful for feeding, fighting, fleeing and reproducing. therefore, a naturalist can not say that evolution leads to true beliefs.
"there is a tiger nearby; therefore, I should run like billy-o" might save your hide -- but so could the thought "ah, a big orange thing! If I run away from it, maybe it will be my friend," or "gosh, maybe now would be a good time to work on my mile time." But since all the stupid beliefs keep you alive just as well as the right one, evolutionary processes would promote stupid beliefs as readily as intelligent ones. So if evolution is calling the shots, all of your beliefs might very well fall in the category of "stupid, but effective." source
my thoughts on this:
first lets look at the scenario of the tiger. sure, you could come up with millions of scenarios just like that with both positive and negative repercussions. but the bottom line is that ALL of them would some how have to be driven by natural selection.
if someone always ran away from things in hopes they would become friends; it should follow that they wouldn't be eaten by the tiger. however, under what circumstances would the "i run away from those whom i hope to befriend" gene come about?
secondly, if you are an ATHEIST who is being fed this line of apologetics, just sit back and bask in the irony of the moment. just consider the argument that the CHRISTIAN is trying to use to convince you:
if you except both naturalism and evolution, you would have to except the possibility, that some people might believe things to be true, which are in fact false.
umm... you mean like christianity?