Editing Alvin Plantinga (section)

=== View on naturalism and evolution ===
Even though Plantinga believes that God could have used Darwinian processes to create the world, he stands firm against philosophical [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]]. He said in an interview on the [[relationship between science and religion]] that:

<blockquote>Religion and science share more common ground than you might think, though science can't prove, it presupposes that there has been a past for example, science does not cover the whole of the knowledge enterprise.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/2012/01/29/145108456/exploring-the-real-conflict-science-vs-naturalism |title=Exploring The Real 'Conflict': Science Vs. Naturalism|website=[[NPR]] }}</ref></blockquote>

Plantinga participated in groups that support the [[Intelligent Design Movement]], and was a member of the "Ad Hoc Origins Committee"<ref>"Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga has also signed this letter" – [http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm We're Not in Kansas Anymore], [[Nancy Pearcey]], [[Christianity Today]], May 22, 2000, cited in {{harvnb|Forrest|Gross|2004|p=18}} "Alvin Plantinga was also a signatory to this letter, early evidence of his continuing support of the intelligent design movement"&nbsp;– ''Intelligent design creationism and its critics'', [[Robert T. Pennock]] (ed), 2001, p44</ref> that supported [[Philip E. Johnson]]'s 1991 book ''[[Darwin on Trial]]'', he also provided a back-cover endorsement of Johnson's book: "Shows how Darwinian evolution has become an idol."<ref>Darwin on Trial back cover</ref>

He was a Fellow of the (now defunct) pro-intelligent design [[International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design]],<ref>[http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php ICSD list of Fellows] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116054926/http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php |date=2013-01-16 }} but note that this site appears not to have been updated since 2005</ref> and has presented at a number of intelligent design conferences.<ref>{{harvnb|Forrest|Gross|2004|pp=156, 191, 212, 269}}</ref> In a March 2010 article in ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'', philosopher of science [[Michael Ruse]] labeled Plantinga as an "open enthusiast of intelligent design".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://chronicle.com/article/What-Darwins-Doubters-Get-/64457/ |title=Philosophers Rip Darwin |newspaper=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |date=March 7, 2010 |access-date=2010-04-28}}</ref> In a letter to the editor, Plantinga made the following response:

<blockquote>
Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that.

...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but ''unguided'' evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://chronicle.com/article/Evolution-Shibboleths-and/64990/ |title=Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers |newspaper=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |date=April 11, 2010 |access-date=2010-04-28}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The attitude that he proposes and elaborates upon in ''Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism'' is that there is no tension between religion and science, that the two go hand in hand, and that the actual conflict lies between naturalism and science.<ref>Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/WGCopwmExI4 Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20200228224332/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGCopwmExI4&app=desktop Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGCopwmExI4 |title=Where the Conflict Really Lies |date=14 February 2018 |via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}</ref>