Reddit reviews What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy

I'm sure you're trying to troll here, but let me take your question seriously.

Here's a selection for your convenience:

• The debate over multilevel selection theory comes down to a common conflation of two different definitions of the term which can be quite well-clarified by judicious use of the Price equation.
  
• It is not sufficient for a proposition to be known that it be (i) justified, (ii) true, and (iii) believed by an agent.
  
• Naive versions of divine command theory fail outright. That one goes back to Plato.
  
• For a large number of instances, spacetime substantivalism leads to very strange conclusions.
  
• For more, you could try this entire book.

Gary Gutting has a fine book, What Philosophers Know which focusses on this question with regard to fairly contemporary "analytic" philosophy. The answer is, in general, very little (as the survey rofflewoffles posted also shows).

>If you have another source

How about Plantinga's writings themselves? He devotes about 60 pages to the problem of evil in this book. A good secondary source is the chapter entitled "Turning the Tables: Plantinga and the Rise of Philosophy of Religion" in the book I quoted from in a previous post, What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy.

There's also this paper by Plantinga, "Degenerate Evidence and Rowe's New Evidential Argument from Evil", which is a more recent (well, 1998) take on his thoughts on the problem of evil. I haven't read it, though, so I don't know if it touches on what we've been discussing.

The bottom line is that it's hardly fair, or intellectually honest(if you ask me) to dismiss something before reading it for yourself. You may very well read Plantinga and discover that what he says is laughable, but you're currently in no position to do so, having not even read him yourself.