In this paper I discuss John Haught's `critical intelligence' argument against naturalism. First I outline Haught's version of theistic evolution. Then I discuss the case he makes against naturalism with his `critical intelligence' argument. He uses two versions of the argument to make his case: a trustworthiness of critical intelligence argument and an ineffectiveness of naturalistic theories of the mind argument. I evaluate both versions of his `critical intelligence' argument against naturalism, and find that both versions contain false premises, and thus come up short in making a strong case against naturalism.