" 

  
 ==EAAN== 
 You suggested several times that ID and EAAN are intimately related. You then blocked the discussion, so people can't dicuss the topic anymore. Because of this, I'm posting the arguments in you talk-page. Alternatively you could unlock the discussion page again, because to most people who understand EAAN the article is now in a dissatisfying condition and we'd like to discuss its improvement. 
  It seems there are two main arguments on your side: 
 :Plantinga presented the argument at Intelligent Design conferences (Creationism's Trojan Horse p269). 
 :It has been discussed in a book about ID and its critics. 
 Here is my response. 
 :# The argument is an argument against Naturalism given evolution. It can't be reformed to be an argument against evolution given naturalism, because as Plantinga says himself, ""for the naturalist evolution is the only game in town"". James Beilby writes in his foreword to Plantingas Argument(Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, 2002, p. vii)  ""Plantinga's argument should not be mistaken for an argument against evolutionary theory in general or, more specifically, against the claim that humans might have evolved from more primitive life forms. Rather, the purpose of his argument is to show that the denial of the existence of a creative deity is problematic. It is the conjunction of naturalism and evolution that suffers from the crippling deficiency of self-defeat, a deficiency not shared by the conjunction of theism and current evolutionary doctrine."" The conclusion of the argument is interesting for any non-naturalist or theist (and may be presented at any conference concerning all sorts of theisms/deisms). But this doesn't relate the argumet more intimately to ID than any argument of natural theology. As a matter of fact, an ID proponent has a problem deploying the argument: if he convinces his naturalis friend of the truth of ID instead of evolution, he can't use EAAN anymore, since evolution is a premis of EAAN. 
 :#EAAN is in the book for the mentioned reasons. There is also a chapter on theistic evolution in the book. Yet, theistic evolution clearly isn't related to ID in the sense required by wikipedia. 
 :#Plantinga may or may not agree to evolution. He may even be a proponent of ID (which is not at all clear). But even if he was a fierce proponent of ID, this doesn't automatically relate all his work to ID. I have read quite a lot of Plantingas work (Knowledge of god, god and other minds, naturalism defeated, God, Freedom, and Evil, The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader and some essays) and he never so much as mentions ID. ID is not present in his work and most notably EAAN is not related to ID, because it has evolution as its premise.  
 I hope to have convinced you that for the sake of the quality of wikipedia the ID passage and tag should be gone. If this is not enough, we'll have to let other people decide who's got the better arguments. 
 Thanks.  "