Refuting Creationism - A Small Problem for Science - A Massive Blow For Creationists

Scarisoara Ice Cave in Romania.

Credit: Paun V.I.

Bacteria frozen in ancient underground ice cave found to be resistant against 10 modern antibiotics

As every schoolboy knows, Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic when the fungus Penicillium contaminated a Petri dish in which he had been culturing bacteria. What Fleming had discovered was a naturally occurring antibacterial substance produced by the fungus.

Such compounds are produced by fungi as part of their evolutionary arms race with the bacteria in their environment, and there is a whole range of them, many still awaiting discovery. On the other side of this arms race, bacteria evolve resistance.

It is a struggle that has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, ever since fungi evolved — and perhaps even earlier between ancestral eukaryotes and bacteria. Modern medical use of antibiotics has simply accelerated this ancient contest. We are now facing a major challenge in keeping pace with bacterial evolution, and hospitals in particular have become breeding grounds for resistant strains.

The tendency, therefore, is to assume that antibiotic resistance is a modern, anthropogenic phenomenon. It comes as something of a surprise, then, to learn that a bacterium, Psychrobacter SC65A.3, recovered from 5,000-year-old ice cores in a Romanian cave, has been found to be resistant to ten modern antibiotics.

Frankly, this is difficult to explain other than in terms of earlier evolutionary arms races. The discovery, by a team from the Institute of Biology, Bucharest, Romania, with colleagues from the University of Bucharest and the Universidad de Antofagasta, Chile, is reported in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology.

While this finding presents microbiologists with an intriguing puzzle, it presents creationists with a more acute problem. There simply should not be 5,000-year-old ice preserved in a Romanian cave — let alone viable bacteria within it — if the biblical narrative of a global flood some 4,000 years ago were historically accurate. And if a putative designer deity created bacteria already equipped with resistance to antibiotics that would not be synthesised by humans for millennia, that would imply pre-emptive malevolence.

This leaves modern Intelligent Design advocates with an uncomfortable choice: retreat into literalist theology and abandon scientific reasoning, or confront the implications of the evidence.

Creationism Refuted - Genetic Diseases 2,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

AI-Generated image (ChatGPT 5.2)

Daniel Fernandes preparing to take a sample.

© Adrian Daly

Ancient DNA reveals 12,000-year-old case of rare genetic disease

The standard creationist response to evidence that the human genome is not the perfectly designed blueprint we should expect from a flawless designer is to claim that ‘sin’ somehow caused it to become degraded. Discovery Institute fellow Michael J. Behe even introduced the biologically nonsensical notion of ‘genetic entropy’, which supposedly allows deleterious genes to spread throughout a species’ gene pool by some unexplained process — an idea that only those unfamiliar with how natural selection works could find convincing.

It is, of course, impossible for a genuinely deleterious gene to increase in frequency within a population unless it is linked to an advantageous trait whose benefits far outweigh its harmful effects. And if the genome were originally perfect, as Behe assumes, how could any advantageous mutation arise in the first place?

Behe, unwittingly or otherwise, appears to have abandoned any pretence that Intelligent Design is science rather than fundamentalist Christianity in a lab coat. By invoking an initial perfect creation followed by corruption through ‘sin’, he has simply retreated into theology — especially after his ‘irreducible complexity’ argument collapsed so spectacularly during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

Even that feeble argument, however, has now fallen foul of evidence showing that deleterious variants and genetic disorders existed in the human genome long before the creationist narrative claims that ‘perfect’ humans were created somewhere in Mesopotamia just 6,000–10,000 years ago. A paper recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine by a team of researchers led by the University of Vienna and Liège University Hospital Centre reports the identification of genetic variants associated with a rare disorder in two prehistoric individuals who lived more than 12,000 years ago.

The individuals were discovered in 1963 at Grotta del Romito in southern Italy, buried in an embracing position. There was no sign of trauma. ‘Romito 1’, an adult female, was embracing ‘Romito 2’, an adolescent initially assumed to be male, whose reduced limb length suggested a height of about 110 cm (3 feet 7 inches). Palaeogenomic analysis, using DNA extracted from the petrous part of the temporal bone, has now shown that the adolescent was also female and was homozygous for a variant in the NPR2 gene, which is essential for normal bone growth. The two individuals were first-degree relatives, probably mother and daughter. The adult, Romito 1, was heterozygous for the same variant.

What this study makes clear is that genetic variants capable of causing disease were already present in the human genome thousands of years before the Bronze Age authors of Biblical origin myths imagined a special creation of ‘perfect’ humans without ancestry. These variants did not require some magical ingredient called ‘sin’ to arise — only the ordinary reality of imperfect replication and inheritance.

Malevolent Design - Yet More Evidence Of Intelligently Designed Cancer?

Scientists Uncover Key Driver of Treatment-Resistant Cancer

These images show the beginnings of chromothripsis in colorectal cancer cells. The N4BP2 enzyme (green) infiltrates a micronucleus (zoomed in square selections), where it induces DNA damage (red). Blue represents the main cell nucleus.

Credit: UC San Diego Health Sciences

At the risk of labouring the point I made in my post yesterday — that the exact same arguments ID creationists use as ‘proof’ of intelligent design can also be applied to cancers, parasites, pathogens, and genetic diseases, thereby ‘proving’, in ID terms, that these too were intelligently designed by the same deity — we have yet another example of complex specified genetic information driving the evolution of cancers as they rapidly develop resistance to treatments.

This is reported in a research paper in Science by researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego).

The researchers discovered an enzyme responsible for breaking up a chromosome in cancer cells and rearranging it into a scrambled version, enabling the tumour to evolve rapidly. The process is quite simple and closely mimics evolution by natural selection, or the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Shuffling genes in this way increases the likelihood that a small number of cancer cells will survive the treatment aimed at destroying them. The tumour then regrows from these resistant cells, producing a treatment-resistant cancer.

This ability, known as chromothripsis, is found in about 24% of human cancers.

The key to this process is the protein enzyme N4BP2, and the complex, specified gene that produces it. The process begins when an error in DNA replication causes individual chromosomes to become trapped inside tiny, fragile structures called micronuclei. When these micronuclei burst, the chromosome is exposed to nucleases — enzymes capable of breaking DNA.

Within the ID creationist paradigm, there are no such things as mistakes: everything works exactly as it was designed to work. So we are left to assume that these fragile micronuclei, with their entrapped chromosomes, are a deliberate design feature.

The researchers showed that N4BP2 is uniquely capable of entering micronuclei and breaking the trapped chromosome.

To test the hypothesis that N4BP2 is the culprit, they eliminated it in brain cancer cells and observed a reduction in chromothripsis. They then introduced it into healthy cell nuclei and found that it caused chromosomes to break even in otherwise normal cells.

This is, of course, just as much compelling evidence of intelligent design as anything traditionally cited by ID creationists as proof of an intelligent designer. By contrast, the theory of evolution provides an explanation with none of the problems that force creationists to retreat into contradictory theology, Bronze Age origin myths, and appeals to ‘mystery’.

Malevolent Design - More Evidence Of Intelligently Designed Cancer?

Pancreatic cancers co-opt nerve cells to assist them to develop.

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.2)

Let’s get on pancreatic cancer’s nerves | Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Creationists seem to have pinned all their hopes of justification for their evidence-free beliefs on a false dichotomy and a classic “god of the gaps” fallacy: the claim that complex specified information and irreducible complexity are proof of design by an intelligent entity. This argument relies heavily on the parochial ignorance of its intended audience, who are expected to assume that this “designer” must be the Christian god of the Bible — or, depending on geography and cultural background, the god of the Qur’an — and that therefore those holy books must be the inerrant word of the supposed creator.

However, the problem this raises for creationists is an obvious one: who or what, within their framework, designed all the many examples of irreducible complexity and complex specified information that cause suffering, sickness, and death?

Another striking example has just been published in Cancer Discovery by Professor Jérémy Nigri and colleagues from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, USA.

In this paper, the researchers use advanced 3D imaging to show how, even before tumours form, tumour-promoting fibroblasts — known as myCAFs — send out signals that attract nerve fibres. The myCAFs and nerve cells then work together within pancreatic lesions to create a microenvironment favourable for cancer growth. Embarrassingly for Intelligent Design advocates, this system depends entirely on the genetic capacity of myCAFs to send the correct molecular signals, and for nerve fibres to respond appropriately — a finely tuned interaction requiring precisely the sort of “irreducible complexity” they insist can only arise through intentional design.

Within the ID paradigm, these facts should be indisputable evidence of their god’s involvement — but only when the outcome is something they find beneficial, such as eyes, blood clotting, or a brain capable of abstract thought. When the very same logic points instead to cancers, parasites, and congenital diseases, it is suddenly no evidence at all, and certainly not evidence of malevolent intent on the part of the designer. The argument collapses into childish special pleading: design is invoked when convenient, but denied when morally awkward.

Malevolent Design - How Cancer Reprograms The Immune System To Work For It, Not Against It - Malevolence or Evolution?

Tumour containing infiltrating neutrophils. In light grey, tumour cells. Among the infiltrating neutrophils, some do not express CCL3 (blue), while others are CCL3 positive (red). CCL3-positive neutrophils are highly conserved across tumour types and promote the growth of growing tumours.

© Mikaël Pittet – UNIGE

Immune 'hijacking' predicts cancer evolution - Medias - UNIGE

A recent research paper in Cancer Cell, published by a team from the Université de Genève (Unige), Switzerland, led by Professor Mikaël Pittet, describes how neutrophils — key cells of the immune system — can be reprogrammed by cancer cells and then co-opted to drive the cancer’s progression.

This process depends entirely on the presence of multiple interacting components and on specific genes being expressed in both the tumour cells and the neutrophils. Without such irreducible complexity and so-called complex specified genetic information, these cancers would fail to progress.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that, if we accept the Intelligent Design creationists’ argument for design — namely irreducible complexity and complex specified information — then the inescapable conclusion is that this putative designer must also be the evil genius behind cancers, parasites, pathogens, genetic disorders, congenital diseases, and all the suffering they entail, along with the vast medical resources required to combat them.

Far from being the reputedly omnibenevolent and compassionate god of the Bible, creationism’s designer becomes the exact opposite: randomly mendacious and obsessively sadistic, toiling relentlessly to devise ever more ways to increase suffering in the world.

And yet creationists appear to prefer us to adopt that view of their favourite deity rather than accept the evidence that such systems have evolved — and that what we see in cancers, parasites, and pathogens is precisely what the Theory of Evolution predicts, with no supernatural malice or intent involved. For some reason, Intelligent Design creationists often seem more concerned with disproving “Darwinism” for political purposes than with promoting the god of the Bible or Qur’an.

This apparent paradox goes a long way towards explaining why they have so little hesitation in bearing false witness against scientists, misleading their followers with disinformation, and spreading blatant falsehoods. There is no pro-truth agenda in creationism. There is, however, a thinly veiled political agenda: the establishment of theocratic government — first in the USA, then elsewhere — dragging society back towards the pre-Enlightenment world of the so-called Dark Ages, when ignorance, fear, and superstition allowed unelected and unaccountable religious clerics to rule unchecked, and for most people at the lower strata of a hierarchical society, life was nasty, brutish and short.

Creationism Refuted - Why We Need Our Gut Microbiome To Keep Us Healthy

Gut microbiome - AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.2)

Electron microscopic image of rod-shaped gut bacteria.

© Bacteria in the gut. NIH Image Gallery/Donny Bliss, NIH

What gut bacteria like

An open access paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) is a stunning example of the ludicrous complexity evolution has produced — the exact antithesis of what an intelligent designer would create, if such a designer were anything more than grossly incompetent. As I explain in my book, The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting The Intelligent Design Hoax, and as I have pointed out repeatedly on this blog, the hallmark of intelligent design should be minimal complexity and maximal efficiency. And yet what we find in humans — and in just about every other bilaterian animal with a gut — is a vast, intricate symbiotic microbiome supplying functions that could far more simply have been provided directly, with even a little forethought on the part of any competent designer.

Instead, in the sort of convoluted complexity that creationists like to attribute to their putative designer god, but which is in reality a hallmark of evolved systems, we see yet another example of a biological arrangement that betrays not intelligence, but its absence.

The paper, by an international team led by Professor Victor Sourjik and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, the University of Ohio, and Philipps-University Marburg, describes how an interdependent gut microbiome helps to keep both the microorganisms and their host healthy. They show that this complex and dynamic community is governed by countless chemical interactions — not only among the microorganisms themselves, but also between microbes and host tissues. The perception of nutrients and signalling molecules by gut bacteria is therefore crucial in maintaining these relationships.

One key role of this microbiome is in deterring and combating pathological species which would otherwise find the gut — with its warmth and steady supply of pre-digested nutrients — an ideal environment to colonise. This must have been a problem even for the earliest animals with a digestive tract: a vulnerability effectively built into the body plan. The solution, in the form of beneficial commensal organisms, is therefore probably as old as the first tube-like bilaterians themselves.

The problem the human gut faces in this respect can be gauged from the fact that some studies have shown that 50-55% or more of the dry weight of human faces is bacteria, dead and alive[1] , with populations of bacteria in the order of 10¹¹ bacteria per gram![2] Imagine then the opportunities this presents to a potentially pathological bacteria with a generation time in minutes. With a population exploding exponentially, the potential to overwhelm the host in a few days is enormous. This is the scale of the problem, and of the selection pressure to overcome it, that has produced this massively complex solution, because it wasn't solved in the initial 'design' stage.

Since it worked well enough, there has been no evolutionary pressure to replace it with a less vulnerable gut, or one better equipped to cope with infection without relying on an entire ecosystem of different microorganisms to maintain health. In other words, what we have today is the result of more than half a billion years of evolutionary history since this basic body plan first emerged in the Cambrian.

Malevolent Design - How Ovarian Cancer Looks Intelligently Designed to Spread Rapidly

Creationism's intelligent designer at work

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.2)

Cancer cells (red) stick to mesothelial cells (green) and form hybrid spheres that cut into surrounding abdominal tissue.

Credit: Uno et al., 2026

Scientists now know why ovarian cancer spreads so rapidly in the abdomen | Nagoya University

If intelligent design advocates were honest enough to follow the logic of their own arguments and apply it consistently to the real world, they ought to be acutely embarrassed by the deity they are presenting to the public. Their putative designer god, judged by the evidence they themselves cite, looks less like a benevolent engineer and more like the author of suffering, disease, and death.

That uncomfortable reality is illustrated by yet another research paper showing that pain and mortality can be the direct result of the very things ID proponents celebrate as hallmarks of design: irreducible complexity and “complex specified information”.

This latest example comes from scientists at Nagoya University, Japan, who have shown how ovarian cancer forms an alliance with healthy cells that enables it to spread rapidly to other organs in the abdomen. Their paper has just been published in Science Advances.

As regular readers will be aware, a recurring theme of this blog is that ID advocates conspicuously ignore the vast number of examples from parasitology, oncology, and genetics where the very evidence they cite for an intelligent designer applies just as readily to diseases caused by parasites, pathogens, and genetic malfunctions. Applying ID’s own logic, these are not signs of benevolent craftsmanship but evidence of something far darker — a malevolent intent behind the supposed designer.

The paper in Science Advances is yet another case in point, and doubtless there will be many more soon.

The authors discovered that ovarian cancer cells gather clusters of mesothelial cells from the peritoneum and form hybrid spheres. These protect the cancer cells, help them invade other organs, and create a pathway for metastasis throughout the abdomen. Worse still, these hybrid spheres resist chemotherapy more effectively than cancer cells alone.

If something this complex resulted in something beneficial for humans, Discovery Institute fellows Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski would doubtless have produced one or more books about it, written magazine articles, and embarked on television tours explaining how the finding devastates “Darwinism” and constitutes scientific proof of an intelligent designer — leaving their audiences in no doubt that the locally favoured god is the only entity capable of producing such complexity.

As it is, we can expect only a deafening silence from the Discovery Institute, while their hapless supporters cast about for a fundamentalist religious excuse such as “the Fall”, or perhaps invoke some other evil agent — anything, in fact, except the god of the Bible, who is apparently only credited with designing good things.

Malevolent Design - The Malaria Parasite Is Irreducibly Complex And Has Complex Specified Genetic Information - Oops!

Blood smear showing P. falciparum parasites.

CDC/Dr. Mae Melvin Transwiki approved by: w:en:User:Dmcdevit
This media comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
Public Health Image Library (PHIL), ID #2704
Public Domain, Link

Malaria: Newly Identified “Crown” Stage Controls Parasite Reproduction

Researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have uncovered yet another layer of exquisite molecular sophistication in one of humanity’s most persistent and lethal parasites, Plasmodium falciparum, the chief cause of malignant malaria. Their findings, reported in a recent press release and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Cell Biology, describe a newly identified regulatory “crown” checkpoint that controls parasite reproduction with remarkable precision.

It is difficult to imagine a discovery more awkward for Intelligent Design creationists, because Plasmodium falciparum is precisely the sort of organism that embodies everything Michael Behe and William Dembski insist cannot arise by evolution. Here is complex specified genetic information, tightly regulated developmental choreography, and interlocking biochemical machinery operating across multiple life stages — the very definition, we are told, of “irreducible complexity”.

Unfortunately for the Discovery Institute, this irreducible complexity does not produce a bird’s wing, a human eye, or some uplifting example of divine craftsmanship. It produces malaria — a parasite responsible for immense suffering and hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, mostly children. If complexity is meant to be a hallmark of intelligent design, then the designer’s portfolio includes some rather grim specialities.

The problem is compounded by the fact that Michael Behe has already made malaria central to his arguments. In The Edge of Evolution, he famously pointed to the parasite’s resistance to anti-malarial drugs as an example of the supposed limits of Darwinian evolution, claiming that multiple coordinated mutations were beyond the reach of natural selection. Yet malaria has since become one of the clearest demonstrations that evolution not only occurs, but does so rapidly and repeatedly, exploiting enormous population sizes and intense selection pressures to produce exactly the adaptations Behe claimed were improbable.

As Kenneth Miller pointed out, Behe's mathematical sleight of hand was to assume resistance had to evolve as a single event in a single cell, not across a large population over time - a fallacy of which any good microbiologists should have been aware.

This newly described “crown” stage is simply the latest reminder that biological complexity is not evidence of supernatural design. Evolution predicts complexity wherever it confers survival advantage — including in parasites, pathogens, and diseases. The only real surprise is that creationists continue to present complexity as a theological virtue, when nature so often deploys it in the service of exploitation rather than benevolence.

As ever, none of this will deter creationists from repeating their familiar articles of faith. Faced with an organism whose life cycle resembles a biochemical symphony — regulated checkpoints, specialised invasion machinery, host-cell remodelling, immune evasion, and reproductive stages split between mosquito and human — they will insist that this is not evidence for evolution but evidence against it. The argument, such as it is, runs that complexity must have been present from the start, because it could not have arisen gradually.

But this is simply the old “irreducible complexity” claim in a new disguise: the assertion that because creationists personally cannot imagine intermediate stages, no such stages could have existed. Science, of course, is not obliged to conform to the limits of anyone’s imagination. Evolution does not require that complex systems appear in a single leap. It proceeds by modification of what already exists — co-option, duplication, repurposing, and incremental refinement over deep time — producing the layered complexity we observe today.

Another common retreat is the insistence that this is merely “microevolution”, the trivial shuffling of genes within some mythical created “kind”. Yet Plasmodium falciparum is not merely adjusting the colour of its spots. It is evolving novel biochemical strategies, repeatedly acquiring drug resistance, fine-tuning developmental regulation, and exploiting host environments with extraordinary efficiency. If this is “only microevolution”, then the term has been drained of all meaning.

Malevoent Design - Has Creationism's Divine Malevolence Been Up To Its Old Tricks? - Another Bat Virus Modified To Infect Humans.

Pteropine orthoreovirus (PRV)

Illustration of a Nipah virus.

Photo: AFP / Ruslanas Baranauskas / Science Pho

Bats Identified as Origin of Unexplained Acute Respiratory Illness and Encephalitis in Bangladesh | Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health

paper just published in Emerging Infectious Diseases by a team led by Nischay Mishra, of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, shows that Pteropine orthoreovirus (PRV) — a bat-borne orthoreovirus — has crossed the species barrier into humans in Bangladesh, causing a Nipah-like illness that is difficult to distinguish clinically from Nipah virus infection. The disease presents primarily as an acute respiratory infection, sometimes accompanied by encephalitis.

It has long been known that bats possess a markedly more effective antiviral immune system than humans. This fact alone presents a problem for creationists who insist that humans — and, conveniently, themselves — are the special creation of an omnibenevolent deity. There is no coherent reason why such a deity would equip bats with a superior immune system while leaving humans comparatively vulnerable, unless the intention were for humans to suffer more infectious disease than is strictly necessary.

However, the bat immune system appears to have a significant evolutionary trade-off. Rather than eliminating viruses entirely, it often suppresses their pathological effects while allowing persistent infection. As a result, bats function as biological incubators in which viruses can circulate, diversify, and evolve. Inevitably, some of these variants acquire the ability to cross species barriers and infect humans. This remains the most parsimonious explanation for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19 — the pandemic of 2020–2022 that killed tens of millions of people and inflicted severe damage on the global economy.

Creationists argue that complex, specified genetic information must be supplied by their putative intelligent designer and then, by a glaring act of circular reasoning, claim that the mere existence of such information constitutes evidence for that designer. This line of argument has no more merit than insisting that tins of baked beans can only be made by magic pixies, and therefore that the existence of tins of baked beans proves the existence of magic pixies. It is a form of reasoning that functions only for those who lack even a basic grasp of logic.

An additional difficulty for creationists is that PRV could only become infectious to humans if it possessed the precise genetic features required for that capability. Within the internal logic of intelligent design apologetics, the zoonotic PRV must therefore count as the product of deliberate design — and hence as evidence for a malevolent intelligent designer. The usual response is to abandon any pretence that intelligent design is science rather than religion in disguise, and to retreat into Christian fundamentalism, invoking “the Fall” and claiming that some other supernatural entity was empowered to interfere with creation and design its own suite of pathogens and parasites. This claim borders on blasphemy even within Christian theology, which traditionally reserves the creation of living things exclusively to their deity.

Malevolent Design - How Complex Specified Genetic Information and Irreducible Complexity Cause Pancreatic Cancer

Study reveals protein linked to spread of pancreatic cancer through nerves

A paper just published in Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology shows how precisely the sort of complex specified information and irreducible complexity that Discovery Institute fellows William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe proclaim as evidence of intelligent design can instead combine to ensure that pancreatic cancer survives, metastasises, and ultimately kills its victims.

This, of course, is true of many diseases, which simply would not exist unless the right combination of genetic information were present and functioning correctly for the disease itself. Yet creationists routinely compartmentalise their beliefs so that harmful “designs” are excluded and blamed on something else, while only those features that appear to benefit humans are credited to a designer.

In the case of parasites, what is harmful to humans is often beneficial to the parasite, but once again the presence of harm causes the logic of creationist arguments to shift. No longer is this evidence of intelligent design, but of something called “sin”, which appears to operate as an autonomous entity capable not only of corrupting creation but of designing living organisms and manipulating their genomes. The formerly omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient designer god now seems strangely impotent, indolent, or indifferent in the face of this alternative “designer”.

This theology also sits uncomfortably alongside another core fundamentalist belief: that God has a plan for everyone, and that everything that happens in a person’s life occurs as part of this divine plan. Presumably, then, that plan must include any diseases they suffer from, including cancer.

It is therefore difficult to see how creationists can escape the conclusion that their god designs and causes cancer as part of this plan, while continuing to cling to the claim that intelligent design is inherently benevolent.

Unintelligent Design - One Design Blunder Led To Another And Ended Up Causing Cancer - Or Was It Deliberate?

A broken DNA repair tool accelerates aging | News from Goethe University Frankfurt

Researchers from Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, have shown how a faulty DNA repair mechanism triggers inflammation and leads to accelerated ageing, developmental abnormalities, and cancer.

Their findings are published in Science.

As I explained in my book, The Unintelligent Designer: Exposing the Intelligent Design Hoax, one of the hallmarks of an evolved system — and one which creationists have been conditioned to mistake for evidence of intelligent design — is complexity. In reality, the opposite is true: intelligently designed objects and processes are typically *minimally

complex, doing exactly what is required and no more.

One reason complexity arises in evolved systems is the need for additional layers of processes to compensate for the suboptimal designs that evolution inevitably produces. An intelligently designed process — especially one devised by a designer endowed with foresight — would require no such compensatory mechanisms. It would function reliably every time and be robust enough to withstand environmental stressors and other causes of malfunction. Nor would a perfectly designed copying process be prone to copying errors.

What we observe in reality, however, is an excessively complex system that still malfunctions — and when it does, it can do so unpredictably and catastrophically, leading to increased suffering and even death. The equivalent, in engineering terms, would be an aircraft manufacturer producing planes that were mostly safe most of the time, yet costly to build because they relied on intricate back-up systems to compensate for other components prone to failure — and which nevertheless suffered unpredictable mid-flight failures when those back-ups failed, causing aircraft to fall from the sky. Such an incompetent aircraft manufacturer would not remain in business for long.

In contrast to evolved systems which are overly complex and still prone to errors, an intelligently designed organism would be minimally complex, maximally efficient, robust enough to withstand environmental stressors and work perfectly every time. As so often, what ID predicts is not what we actually observe. In normal science, the falsification of a hypothesis is regarded as confirmation that the hypothesis was wrong, but in creationism the reverse holds; if the facts fail to confirm the hypothesis the facts must be wrong. The hypothesis must be clung to with grim determination, come what may.

Malevolent Design - How The Toxoplasma Parasite Looks Intelligently Designed - To A Creationist

Toxoplasma gondii cyst in brain cell.

A) Toxoplasma gondii tachyzoites, the rapidly multiplying form of the parasite. B) A bradyzoite cyst containing Toxoplasma gondii within a muscle fiber, showing the cyst wall and individual bradyzoites. C) Histological section of tissue with Toxoplasma gondii cysts. D) Microscopic image of a Toxoplasma gondii oocyst, responsible for environmental transmission.

source.

Scientists find hidden diversity inside common brain parasite | UCR News | UC Riverside

Another example of a nasty little parasite that bears all the hallmarks of the Discovery Institute’s supposed *“proof”* of intelligent design was unveiled today, when scientists from the University of California, Riverside published the results of their investigation into the common brain parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, which infects up to a third of the global population. Their paper was published open access in Nature Communications. It has been released unedited to provide early access to the findings.

Ask Discovery Institute (DI) fellow Michael J. Behe for proof of intelligent design and he will produce multiple examples of what he terms “irreducible complexity”, claiming that such systems could not have evolved step by step and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural intelligent designer. Similarly, ask another DI fellow, William A. Dembski, for proof of intelligent design and he will produce examples of what he calls “complex specified genetic information”, which he claims likewise could not have evolved naturally and therefore must have been provided by a supernatural designer.

Curiously, however, when biologists point to examples of “irreducible complexity” or “complex specified genetic information” in pathogens or parasites — organisms whose sole apparent purpose is to make us ill or kill us, or at the very least to increase suffering in the world - as evidence that, if the ID creationists’ argument were granted, it would imply malevolent intent on the part of the intelligent designer, the response is either silence or retreat into theology. More often than not, the blame is shifted to “the Fall”, while the insistence remains that intelligent design is a genuine scientific alternative to “Darwinism”, and not merely Bible-literalist Christian fundamentalism under another name.

At this point, their supposed “proof” of intelligent design quietly evaporates. Behe will even attempt to argue that the random process he calls “genetic entropy” is responsible, thereby conceding that random processes can generate what Dembski describes as complex specified genetic information — while simultaneously insisting that such information cannot have evolved through random processes at all.

The UC Riverside team have now shown that Toxoplasma gondii is even more complex than previously thought. It was already known that the parasite invades the brain and other tissues, where it forms dormant cysts that can later be reactivated. Its preferred hosts are members of the cat family, and humans are most commonly infected via cats. In some secondary hosts, it has been shown to manipulate behaviour in ways that make them more likely to be eaten by a cat, thereby completing its life cycle. Infected mice, for example, actively seek out the presence of domestic cats, while chimpanzees develop a fascination with the scent of leopard urine. It is possible that effects observed in humans are an echo of this behaviour-modifying mechanism inherited from our evolutionary past.

The new research shows that these cysts are far more complex than simple dormant copies of the parasite. Instead, they are intricate assemblages of multiple sub-types, each with distinct biological functions. In this respect, the cyst exhibits some of the characteristics of a multicellular organism, including a degree of cellular specialisation.

Malevolent Design - The Brain-Eating Amoeba is Coming To A Pond Near You!

Invisible but deadly: Scientists warn of a growing global threat from amoebae in water and the environment | EurekAlert!

In a recent paper published in Biocontaminant, a group of environmental and public health scientists from China and the United States warn of the growing threat to public health from a group of dangerous free-living single-celled amoebae, the most notorious of which is Naegleria fowleri, also known as the brain-eating amoeba.

This complex, eukaryotic organism bears all the hallmarks of what Discovery Institute fellows William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe insist is compelling evidence for intelligent design — complex specified genetic information and irreducible complexity — so, if we accept their argument, we have to conclude that whatever designer they imagine is doing this designing must also be the one who designed these nasty little ways to make people sick and die by having their brains eaten, like in some grotesque zombie apocalypse.

This pathogenic amoeba is not new — I wrote about it in The Malevolent Designer: Why Nature’s God is not Good, page 33, based on a blog post I originally wrote in 2015. Since then, assisted by global warming, ageing water-supply infrastructure, and a lack of effective monitoring, the amoeba has become a global threat to public health.

N. fowleri normally lives in soil and water, where it feeds on bacteria and other micro-organisms, but if it manages to get into a victim’s nose it can track along the olfactory nerves to the brain, where it treats brain cells the way it treats soil-borne organisms and sets about eating them. Infections are almost invariably fatal. What makes them particularly dangerous is their ability to survive extreme conditions that would kill most micro-organisms, such as high temperatures and strong disinfectants like chlorine, so they can persist in water supplies that most people regard as safe.

An additional hazard is that these amoebae can also act as carriers for other pathogens such as Legionella pneumophila, Chlamydia, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. By providing these pathogens with protection from disinfection, the amoeba can enhance their pathogenicity and prolong their survival in the environment.

It would be hard to find a better example than N. fowleri of what creationists insist must be intelligently designed, so it follows that there are probably few better examples of the sheer malevolent evil of any designer of such creatures, from the perspective of the humans infected with it. For creationists to retreat into the traditional excuse of blaming ‘the Fall’ is to abandon the claim that irreducible complexity and complex specified genetic information are definitive evidence of intelligent design, and to retreat instead into religious fundamentalism and Bible literalism.

Unintelligent Design - Why Some People Suffer More From The Common Cold Than Others - Incompetent or Malevolent Design - Or Evolution?

Electron micrograph showing a human nasal epithelial cell releasing rhinovirus (blue).

Credit: Julien Amat, Bao Wang

Electron micrograph of differentiated human nasal epithelial organoids with cilia of multiciliated cells accentuated in blue.

Credit: Julien Amat, Bao Wang.

Why the same cold can be a sniffle for some and a crisis for others | Yale News

You might expect an intelligently designed system, created by an omnibenevolent designer, to work just as effectively for everybody and not badly for some and only just adequately for others. And yet, as so often with creationism, the facts are not at all what the theory predicts. In science this would be called falsification, but for creationists it is just another inconvenient fact to be ignored or blamed on ‘the Fall’ — or even on the victim.

According to a paper just published in Cell Press Blue, the reason some people suffer more from a cold caused by a rhinovirus is not so much because of differences in the virus, but because their bodies react differently. Some take control and prevent the spread of viruses to adjacent cells of the mucous membrane lining the nasal passages, whereas other people’s bodies fail to prevent the virus spreading.

The paper is by a team at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA, led by Associate Professor Dr Ellen F. Foxman, PhD.

By growing organoids in vitro and infecting them with rhinoviruses, the team were able to show that whether the infection spreads depends on how quickly the infected cells are able to mount an interferon response. A good response limits the infection to just a few cells and the cold does not develop beyond a ‘sniffle’. Where the response is weak, the infection spreads and, in cases where the victim has an underlying respiratory condition such as asthma or COPD, the cold can develop into a serious illness.

Why the interferon response differs between individuals is not known with any certainty, but it could be due to a number of factors, including genetics. However, it is known that in patients with pre-existing respiratory conditions, the interferon response is inhibited.

That, of course, begs the question for ID creationists: why a system supposedly designed to protect us gets downgraded when it is most needed, and, if the difference is due to underlying genetics, why some people got better genes in this respect than others. Under the ID creationist paradigm, genes that produce any given output are deemed to hold ‘complex specified genetic information’ and, as such, are evidence for intelligent design.

Leaving aside the question of why any omnibenevolent designer would design viruses to make us sick and then design an immune response to prevent them doing so, we are left with the question of why this immune system does not always work very well and why some people have a worse version than others. If an omnibenevolent designer can design an effective immune system, why did it not give it to everyone? Does it actually want those people to suffer more from the viruses it supposedly designed?

The evolutionary explanation is, of course, straightforward, with none of the theological conundrums that plague creationism. Evolution does not seek out perfection and has no interest in equity. In the environment of an evolutionary arms race with viruses, the results are inevitably suboptimal and unevenly distributed throughout the population unless there is particularly strong selection pressure to drive the ‘best’ solution to fixation. It is also in the survival interests of viruses to tone down their victim’s responses, thereby reducing that selection pressure. The resulting trade-off and compromise is what we see today in the different responses to the same virus.

Creationism Refuted - How New Genetic Information Causes Diseases

Study shows your genes determine how fast your DNA mutates with age | UCLA Health

Creationist dogma insists that new genetic information can only be created by their putative intelligent designer, so it should be deeply embarrassing for them to learn that certain stretches of our DNA lengthen as we age, that the rate at which this happens is influenced by genes, and that excessive expansion of these sequences can lead to serious liver or kidney diseases.

This was discovered by researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the Broad Institute, and Harvard Medical School, who analysed whole-genome sequencing data from 490,416 UK Biobank participants and 414,830 participants in the All of Us Research Program. Their findings were published recently, open access, in Nature.

This research is particularly awkward for creationists because of their insistence on the supposedly ‘sacred’ principle that only their intelligent designer can add new information to a genome. If we concede that claim for the sake of argument, then this newly generated genetic information must have been created deliberately and designed to produce a specific outcome — unless creationism’s designer was simply fiddling about aimlessly. Having a specific outcome (as all genes do) is precisely what William A. Dembski of the Discovery Institute insists is evidence for intelligent design, by a neat process of circular reasoning that only creationists find persuasive.

We then have the additional fact that a high rate of expansion of these DNA sequences is controlled by genetic modifiers and does not occur if any of those genes is not functioning properly. In other words, the resulting liver and kidney diseases are due to what Michael J. Behe famously describes as proof of a designer god: ‘irreducible complexity’.

Still conceding creationist claims, then, Dembski’s and Behe’s own logic demonstrates that their intelligent designer deliberately causes these diseases of old age.

Creationists are further hoist by their own petard in that they traditionally blame disease on ‘The Fall’, thereby conceding that intelligent design creationism is a form of fundamentalist religion rather than science. At the same time, however, they insist that only their intelligent designer can produce the new genetic information responsible for the expansion of these DNA sequences, which neatly rules out the involvement of the vague, non-physical agency they refer to as ‘sin’.

This leaves creationists with an uncomfortable dilemma: either their designer god actively causes liver and kidney disease, or new genetic information can indeed be produced by natural processes in which their designer plays no part — in which case a major plank of creationism collapses. The alternative is to concede that their allegedly omnibenevolent god is directly responsible for serious diseases in elderly people.

It is scarcely worth pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that these outcomes are easily explained as the predictable result of an undirected evolutionary process that has no concept of perfection, inevitably settling for compromise and prioritising reproductive success early in life at the expense of longer-term health and wellbeing.

Unintelligent Design - How An Essential Vitamin Helps Cancer Resist Our Immune Response

Ludwig Cancer Research

Recent research has shown that a metabolite of vitamin A, retinoic acid, can quietly inhibit the immune system, making it less responsive to tumours. It also reduces the effectiveness of a promising anti-cancer immunotherapy.

This work, carried out by scientists at the Princeton University branch of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, has resulted in two papers. The first, published in Nature Immunology, describes how retinoic acid produced by the immune system’s dendritic cells (DCs) alters their behaviour, inducing a dangerous tolerance of tumours. The second, published open access in iScience, outlines progress in developing drugs that inhibit retinoic acid production.

To anyone who understands evolution and how it proceeds through a series of sub-optimal “it’ll do” solutions — constrained by what is available at the time and lacking any foresight — it will come as no surprise that the human body’s dependence on vitamin A comes with a downside. These are the inevitable compromises of evolutionary history. What is inexplicable, however, is this vulnerability in terms of intelligent design by an omniscient, omnipotent designer, who should have foreseen such dangers and engineered a better solution — unless, of course, the creation of favourable conditions for cancer was itself part of the design. And that, of course, leads to the theological problems ID creationism leads inexorably to, but ID advocates routinely ignore - a god who is incompetent, indifferent, powerless, or worse still malevolent.

Unintelligent Design - A Brain 'Designed' for Memory Loss in Old Age

[left caption]

[right caption]

New Mega-Analysis Reveals Why Memory Declines With Age | Hebrew SeniorLife

A paper published last November in Nature Communications by an international team lead by scientists from the University of Oslo, is just the sort of evidence against intelligent design and for evolution that creationists normally misrepresent, lie about or ignore, because it illustrates the stark difference between what ID creationism predicts and what we see, and of course, what we see is exactly what the Theory of Evolution predicts. And it's another superb example of how the human body refutes the childish notion of intelligent design by a magic invisible designer, many more of which I have included in my book, The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design.

There is a persistent tendency among creationists and Intelligent Design advocates to imagine biology as if it were the product of a competent, benevolent engineer, optimised for lifelong performance and reliability. Real organisms, however, stubbornly refuse to behave like that. Evolution does not design for comfort, longevity, or even cognitive elegance; it shapes traits that maximise reproductive success in the environments in which our ancestors actually lived. Once reproduction has occurred and offspring are independent, the force of natural selection weakens dramatically. From that point on, biological systems are increasingly free to accumulate compromises, trade-offs, and outright failures — not because they are useful, but because there is little evolutionary incentive to eliminate them.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the ageing human brain. Memory, learning, and cognitive flexibility are exquisitely tuned for early and mid-life, precisely when they matter most for survival, social navigation, and reproduction. Later in life, however, those same systems reveal a striking lack of long-term maintenance. This is not a mystery, nor is it a design flaw crying out for a supernatural explanation. It is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts under mechanisms such as antagonistic pleiotropy, mutation accumulation, and the diversion of finite biological resources away from indefinite repair and towards reproduction. In short, evolution produces brains that are *good enough* for long enough — not brains that are guaranteed to remain intact into old age.

That expectation is strongly reinforced by the paper in Nature Communications, which combines large-scale neuroimaging and cognitive data to examine why memory reliably declines with age even in otherwise healthy adults. Rather than pointing to a single failing component or a neatly isolated genetic “defect”, the study reveals a diffuse pattern of structural brain change, with memory loss emerging from the cumulative erosion of multiple interconnected regions. This kind of widespread, variable vulnerability is exactly what an evolutionary framework anticipates — and exactly the opposite of what Intelligent Design would lead us to expect. What follows is not evidence of poor design, but evidence of no design at all: only the predictable consequences of evolution’s ruthless focus on reproductive success early in life, and its indifference to what happens long after that job is done.

Refuting Creationism - Two Ancient Eurasians Carried Human Papillomavirus (HPV16) - Long Before 'Creation Week' and 'The Fall'

A facial reconstruction of Ötzi the Iceman.

Image credit: Reconstruction by Kennis © South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology, Foto Ochsenreiter

Ötzi the Iceman mummy carried a high-risk strain of HPV, research finds | Live Science

Palaeontologists at the Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil have analysed the DNA recovered from two ancient humans and discovered that they were both carriers of the Human Papillomavirus HPV16, a virus implicated in several cancers. They have presented their evidence, ahead of peer-reviewed publication in the pre-print server, bioRxiv.

The interesting thing from the point of view of virology is that this discovery shed considerable light on when HPV entered the human virome and commenced co-evolving with us, with one theory being that we acquired them from Neanderthals. From the point of view of creationists however, the news could scarcely be worse.

The first sample, obtained from the famous 'Ötzi the Iceman', the 5,300 year-old mummified body recovered from a glacier on the Italian-Austrian border, is probably not too much of a problem for creationists as it just about falls within the timeline of the Bible mythology, apart from the little problem of it being from before they believe the was a general reset of Earth's biosphere in a genocidal flood which would have destroyed the glacier and everything in it, so Ötzi should not have been there.

But, the second is a massive problem, since it was recovered from a leg of a man, Ust'-Ishim man, recovered from western Siberia and dated to 45,000 years BP - way before creationists believe Earth existed, and tens of thousands of years before the mythical 'Fall', when creationists believe viruses didn't exist. This specimen provided the oldest complete human genome so far recovered and the DNA contains the unmistakable genome of HPV16. Creationist mythology just keeps getting further and further from reality as exposed by science using real-world evidence.

Traditionally, creationists claim Earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old and was created perfect in every way, with no deaths or diseases, so no viruses, parasites or pathogens, bodies that always functioned perfectly and genomes that never failed to replicate perfectly. Then, along came 'sin' which, by some mysterious process, was able to thwart the omnipotent creator god's perfect plan and create viruses and other pathogens and make perfect physiology begin to malfunction and genomes to fail to replicate perfectly, causing variations and genetic weaknesses, etc.

Why a reputedly omnipotent creator failed to anticipate the effects of 'sin' and make its creation robust enough to resist them is never explained, although, apparently, it provided immune systems in preparation for something that, although omniscient, and even claimed to have created 'evil' (Isiah 45:7), it then failed to anticipate. But, as though those myths aren't too ridiculous for any adult with even a basic education to believe, creationists have to continually think of ways to ignore the evidence and continue holding plainly absurd beliefs, under the child-like delusion that their ability to do so is a sign of strength.

The paper itself sets out to address a long-standing question in human virology: how long oncogenic human papillomaviruses have been associated with our species, and whether their origins lie in relatively recent cultural changes or deep evolutionary history.

Malevolent Design - How ID Creationism 'Proves' Pancreatic Cancer is 'Intelligently Designed'

The Krainer lab developed 12 initial ASO drug candidates. The best performing ASO—ASO-A—completely broke the SRSF1-AURKA-MYC circuit, leading to slower tumor growth and cell death.

Untreated PDAC tumor organoid

PDAC tumor organoid after treatment with ASO-A

CSHL’s Krainer lab has discovered a key oncogenic circuit driving aggressive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) progression. Using human PDAC tumor organoids, seen here, the team developed a potential RNA splicing-based therapeutic that collapses the circuit.

Short-circuiting pancreatic cancer | Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

These examples of what Discovery Institute fellows Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski call “irreducible complexity” and “complex specified information” respectively — cited by them as evidence for an intelligent designer — are now being discovered with such monotonous regularity that it is astonishing they never appear in any of the Discovery Institute’s anti-evolution, anti-science propaganda.

The answer to that conundrum is, of course, that such examples are far more frequently found in parasites, pathogens, and idiopathic conditions such as cancer and autoimmune disease. No self-respecting religious fundamentalist is going to open that particular can of worms and appear to be promoting a manifestly malevolent god. It is far safer to remain silent and instead present cult followers with carefully curated examples of supposedly “beneficial” complexity, selected to appeal to their pre-existing biases.

Nevertheless, here is yet another example whose refusal to be addressed by creationists neatly illustrates the disingenuous nature of these alleged “proofs of intelligent design”. The news comes from a paper just published in the Cell Press journal, Molecular Cell, which shows how pancreatic cancer—specifically pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)—depends on a complex regulatory circuit consisting of three key components.

The research, conducted by a team from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) and led by former CSHL graduate student Alexander Kral, builds on earlier work by Professor Adrian Krainer, who discovered that the protein SRSF1 jump-starts PDAC. The new study shows that SRSF1 does not act alone, but forms one of three interdependent “pillars” in this malignant system—the other two being Aurora kinase A (AURKA) and the oncogene MYC. In laboratory experiments, disabling any one of these three components using RNA-based therapy collapsed the circuit, reduced tumour viability, and triggered programmed cell death.

In Michael Behe’s terms, reducing the complexity kills the system. In William Dembski’s terms, destroying the “complex specified genetic information” kills the cancer cells.

This leaves creationists who are honest enough to confront the evidence with a stark choice: either this is evidence that their intelligent designer deliberately designed pancreatic cancer, or Behe’s and Dembski’s long-trumpeted “proofs of intelligent design” are nothing of the sort. Some of the less scientifically literate will, predictably, invoke “The Fall”, thereby revealing once again that Intelligent Design creationism is not science at all. It is merely Bible-literalist religious fundamentalism dressed up in a laboratory coat — exactly what the Discovery Institute has been attempting to smuggle into US classrooms ever since the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard made it clear that teaching creationism in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the US First Amendment.

Malevolent Design - How Cancer Perfectly Illustrates ID Creationism's 'Proof' of Intelligent Design

Creationism's God at work

Creationism's intelligent designer creating cancer.

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.2).

Dresden research group uncovers new key mechanism in cancer cells | TU Dresden

ID advocates should be thrilled to learn that a team of researchers from Technische Universität Dresden (TUD), Germany, together with colleagues from Charles University, Prague, Czechia, have discovered a perfect example of what Discovery Institute fellows William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe claim is proof of intelligent design—namely complex specified information and irreducible complexity. The team have just published their findings, open access, in Nature Communications.

There is one slight problem, however: this supposed ‘proof of intelligent design’ turns out to be one of the mechanisms that makes cancer so effective at increasing pain and suffering — and at killing people.

This presents creationists with a theological conundrum. Either there is more than one intelligent designer, which comes close to—or even crosses—the line into blasphemy, or the intelligent designer is actively and knowingly creating a cause of pain and suffering, and is therefore not the omnibenevolent deity portrayed in the Bible.

The stark alternative to these theologically insurmountable problems is equally problematic for ID creationism: admitting that their ‘proof of intelligent design’ is nothing of the sort, and is better explained as the result of a natural process in which no intelligence was involved—thereby absolving their god of any culpability.

The TUD-led team discovered that the protein MCL1 not only inhibits programmed cell death, or apoptosis, but also plays a central role in tumour metabolism. Normal, non-cancerous cells will usually self-destruct if their DNA becomes corrupted beyond repair, but when this process fails, a tumour can develop through the proliferation of cells carrying damaged DNA. In cancers, this self-destruct mechanism is suppressed by MCL1.

The team also found that MCL1 is not only responsible for preventing apoptosis, but also dysregulates cellular energy metabolism. In other words, a single factor ensures both cancer cell survival and the functioning of key metabolic and signalling pathways for the benefit of the tumour.

In Michael J. Behe’s terms, all the components of this survival mechanism must be present for the cancer to persist; and in William A. Dembski’s terms, the genetic information coding for MCL1 must constitute highly specified complex information.