Original sentence: " He continues that Plantinga's hypothesised deceptions are "not how evolution's deceptions work.At a Baylor University interdisciplinary conference on "the Role of Naturalism in Science" held in April 2000 at its Michael Polanyi Center dedicated to the study of intelligent design, Plantinga presented a paper on "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" arguing that "the conjunction of naturalism with current evolutionary theory is self-defeating; the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable, given naturalism (N) and the proposition that our faculties have arisen by way of the mechanisms suggested by current evolutionary theory (E), is low or inscrutable; either gives one who accepts N&E a defeater for the proposition that his cognitive faculties are reliable, but then also a defeater for anything else he believes, including N&E itself.EAAN has been associated with the intelligent design movement's attack on naturalism.In a chapter titled 'The New Creationism: Its Philosophical Dimension', in The Cultures of Creationism, philosopher of science Michael Ruse discusses EAAN, making the following points:.Moreover, evolution can often give good reasons as to why we are deceived.Ruse concludes his discussion of the EAAN by stating:.Sometimes we are systematically deceived, as instructors in elementary psychology classes delight in demonstrating.That "[i]t is certainly the case that organisms are sometimes deceived about the world of appearances and that this includes humans.That Plantinga "fudges" between "the world as we can in some sense discover" and "metaphysical reality", and that "[o]nce this distinction is made, Plantinga's refutation of naturalism no longer seems so threatening.That the EAAN conflates methodological & metaphysical naturalism