Having just completed Alvin Plantinga's book Where the Conflict Really Lies, I was a bit surprised to learn that he now takes a different approach to defending premise 1 of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) than he has in the past. Instead of arguing that P(R/N&E) is low on all four materialistic models of belief to action causality, he only argues that P(R/N&E) is low on content epiphenomenalism, and supplements with an argument that materialism leads to content epiphenomenalism.
I am also interested in reading a full length defense of premise 1 on the other three belief to action causality models. In what piece of literature is the most developed and refined version of this older form of the argument presented (one would guess this would be one of the final presentations of the argument before he switched to the newer form, perhaps the final presentation, or perhaps another if the final one is not the most robustly defended).
As an aside, has Plantinga revealed why he made this switch? Does he no longer believe premise 1 is defensible if, i.e., content does enter the causal chain leading to action?