This starts off with a rephrasing of theo-philosopher Alvin Plantinga's claim that evolution makes (e.g. human) perception optimal for survival, not truthiness

This starts off with a rephrasing of theo-philosopher Alvin Plantinga's claim that evolution makes (e.g. human) perception optimal for survival, not truthiness to reality. Many feel that Plantinga has failed to substantiate this claim even though he wrote a fat book on the topic. He fails to make it clear how a badly unreliable model of reality would have greater survival value. Plantinga _needs_ it to be true though, to prop up his argument for the existence of God, so he treats us to many pages of philosophical hand waving. It gets worse in Act 2: The ol' Deepak Chopra trick of equivocating on "observer" in quantum experiments. What Chopra and other people fail to tell you is that the "observer" doesn't need to be human, or even sentient. A video camera or some similar piece of recording equipment - even a photographic film plate - will do fine. That piece of kit would faithfully "observe" the quantum event - and apparently influence it - even if all of humanity had wiped itself out hours earlier. I'm sure there are sensible arguments to be made about consciousness, but these two seriously doubtful premises do not make for a good start.