In Warrant and Propel Function, Alvin Plantinga claims that metaphysic
al naturalism, when joined to a naturalized epistemology, is self-unde
rmining. Plantinga argues that naturalists are committed to a neoDarwi
nian account of our origins, and that the reliability of our cognitive
faculties is improbable or unknown relative to that theory. If the th
eory is true, then we are in no position to know that, whereas theism,
if true, underwrites cognitive reliability. I seek to turn the tables
on Plantinga, showing that neoDarwinism provides strong reasons for e
xpecting general cognitive reliability, whereas the likelihood of that
relative to theism is unknowable.