The Evolutionary critique of Liberal theology

A popular critique of Naturalism in our day has been the argument put forward by Alvin Plantinga, that since the naturalist believes in macro-evolution, he has no basis for believing the validity or veracity of his own thought process. [1.]

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The Romanist and Arminian think they know that reality cannot be such that human responsibility operates within the plan of God.' [2.]
- I think this observation applies to all 'liberal' theologians, and to most evangelical ones as well.

The liberal (Humanist) theologian claims that he knows what reality can and cannot be - and that he uses this knowledge to judge scripture. If it weren't so serious a matter it would be comical. We might bring up Plantinga's critique of naturalism and apply it to 'liberal' theologians, since they too claim to be a proud believers in Darwinism. If man is evolved pond scum (how this could be, no one, not even god, knows) then how is it his mind is capable of judging the truth of God's word? How does this 'mind' know the limits of the possible, and the coordinates of the real?

I see no answer to that critique. (To live with Darwin is to die with Darwin.) To affirm Evolution is to lose all basis for a critique of God's word. (Since using human standards as a method of rewriting Biblical theology is the bread and butter of Humanistic theologians, this leaves them without a reason for being.)

Liberal Christians don't seem to understand how their acceptance of M2M evolution has undercut their ability to to do theology and apologetics. The same arguments they use against the atheist and the naturalist can be used against them. If the naturalist can't trust his own thoughts, then neither can the theologian who believes in evolution. Why should the atheist (or anyone) accept what the Darwinian theologian says about God and God's word?

Summary;
It's only Biblical Christianity that gives man a basis a confidence that his mind is a competent organ; and it's only this Faith that gives him a basis for true knowledge. It was Van Til's view that man is not fit to judge the veracity of scripture; that his only hope of attaining a true picture of the universe was to accept the Bible as the word of God.

Notes;
1. 'The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument regarding a perceived tension between biological evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism --- the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. EAAN argues that the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then—according to Plantinga's calculations—the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low. - Wiki
2. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til/p.224
3. I've given Plantinga credit for this observation but it goes all the way back (at least) to Charles Darwin, who wondered why anyone should take seriously the thoughts of an (evolved) ape. (I think Plantinga borrows the idea from Van Til as well.)
- I can't find the quote I wanted from Darwin.