Home » Library » Authors » Jeffrey T. Allen

Jeffrey T. Allen

Francisco J. Ayala's Stance on Intelligent Design Theory (2009)

In Darwin and Intelligent Design evolutionary geneticist Francisco J. Ayala argues that, first, intelligent design (ID) is "bad" science and "bad" theology, and second, religion and science are separate domains. Ayala thinks that ID is bad theology because, to be consistent, it must (erroneously) attribute the origin of an organism's imperfect "dysfunctionalities" to an ostensibly perfect designer. In part, Ayala maintains that ID is bad science because it is effectively shielded from empirical testing in the absence of suitable auxiliary assumptions—namely, independently established propositions about the putative designer's goal and abilities—preventing ID from being able to predict anything about organisms' biological features. But Jeffrey T. Allen argues that if ID is bad science, then it is good theology, and so Ayala's combined views are not consistent with each other.

Published on the Secular Web

Modern Library

Francisco J. Ayala’s Stance on Intelligent Design Theory

(2009) Jeffrey T. Allen In his recent work Darwin and Intelligent Design[1], evolutionary geneticist and philosopher Francisco J. Ayala argues that (i) intelligent design theory (ID) is “bad” science and “bad” theology, and (ii) religion and science are epistemologically independent of one another. The present work will focus on showing that if ID is scientifically […]

A Bug in William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument

A crucial premise of William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument (KCA) is that the universe began to exist. Craig supplements the KCA itself with a secondary argument for this crucial premise. That secondary argument, in turn, presumes that an actual infinite cannot exist. In this essay, Jeffrey T. Allen argues that if an omniscient God exists, the premise that an actual infinite cannot exist is false, as an omniscient God would need to know an infinite number of truths about himself. Thus Craig's defense of his KCA appears to entail a premise that contradicts the conclusion of his KCA. As long as Craig does not offer some alternative defense of the KCA premise that the universe began to exist, and unless he can justify limiting to the physical world his KCA premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause, he must either concede that it is false that an actual infinite cannot exist, or else that God does not exist.