Malevolent Design - We Have The Ability To Regenerate An Amputated Limb - But It's Turned Off And Hidden

A conceptual graphic shows how growth factors BMP2 and FGF2 are applied to the injury site to stimulate tissue regeneration, highlighting new research into restoring damaged digits.

Credit: Melissa Bristow/Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

A–C Representative longitudinal sections and μCT images (insets) of control and FGF2 treated digits 21 days post treatment (DPT). A Control BSA treated digits do not display a regenerative response and are truncated. B The majority of FGF2 treated digits are truncated without displaying a regenerative response. C A minority of FGF2 treated digits produce an ectopic skeletal element distal to the amputation that articulates with the stump bone.

Yu, L., Yan, M., Scaturro, K.Z. et al. (2026).

What if humans could regrow tissue? Texas A&M study moves science closer – Texas A&M Stories.

Although the Discovery Institute and its Fellows who advocate for Intelligent Design are usually careful not to identify their putative “intelligent designer” explicitly with the God of the Christian Bible, the dog-whistle signals they use leave their target audience in little doubt. The designer is understood to be the Christian god, merely relabelled for legal and tactical convenience. That being so, and if that god were actively interfering in the design and evolution of living systems — with humans as the supposed pinnacle of creation and occupying a special place in it — we might reasonably expect humans to have been given the best design available.

Instead, nature looks exactly as an unplanned evolutionary process would lead us to expect: a patchwork of compromises, contingencies and inherited limitations. As I describe in my book, The Malevolent Designer: Why Nature's God is not Good, humans are remarkable in some respects, particularly in our relatively large brains and consequent cognitive abilities, but in most other respects we are not especially impressive. We are not the strongest animals, nor the fastest. Birds of prey have far better eyesight; barn owls and dogs have far better hearing in relevant ranges; dogs have a vastly superior sense of smell; elephants and some other long-lived animals have evolved impressive cancer-resistance mechanisms; and the immune systems of many bats are tuned in ways that make our own look distinctly ordinary.

But perhaps the most striking contrast is in the ability of some animals to regenerate lost or damaged body parts. Several species can regenerate structures that humans simply cannot replace. Salamanders can regrow limbs; fish can replace fins and repair tissues that would leave mammals permanently damaged; and some invertebrates can regenerate astonishing portions of the body. Yet, noticeably, all the prayers, incantations and appeals to divine mercy have never once been shown to regrow an amputated human limb, replace a lost eye, repair a severed spinal cord, or restore dead heart muscle after an infarction. Nor do we see cancerous sections of colon removed by surgery obligingly regrowing as healthy tissue in answer to prayer. These are not impossible biological feats in principle; they are just things our lineage cannot normally do.

Now researchers from Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (VMBS) have found something that should be even more disturbing for Intelligent Design creationists. In a paper recently published in Nature Communications, they report that non-regenerating mouse digit wounds can be induced to move part-way towards regeneration. In other words, the relevant mammalian cells may not be entirely incapable of regeneration; their capacity appears to be suppressed or obscured by the normal wound-healing response. Creationists who reject the evolutionary explanation now need to explain why an intelligent, omnibenevolent designer would leave mammals, including humans, with a latent capacity for regeneration, while allowing that capacity to be overridden by scarring.

The researchers’ explanation makes perfect sense as the outcome of a utilitarian, unplanned evolutionary process. In mammals, rapid wound closure by scar-forming fibroblasts can be life-saving. A quick patch reduces blood loss, closes a route for infection and gives the injured animal a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce. Regeneration, by contrast, is slower and more complex. Evolution has no foresight and no obligation to produce perfection; it merely preserves what works well enough under the circumstances. The injury is patched up with a near-enough-is-good-enough solution, and the animal lives to pass on its genes.

That, of course, should not have been beyond the wit of an intelligent designer to improve upon. A competent designer could have given us both abilities: rapid wound closure to prevent fatal bleeding and infection, followed by orderly regeneration of the missing structures. Instead, we have the familiar evolutionary compromise: survival first, elegance later — and often not at all.

The problem centres on fibroblast cells, which can follow different developmental routes. In ordinary mammalian wound-healing, they rapidly close the wound and form scar tissue. In strongly regenerative animals, similar cells can organise into a blastema — a temporary structure that seals the wound while also providing the cellular basis for rebuilding missing tissues. The Texas A&M team showed that, after the wound had first closed, applying fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), followed later by bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2), could redirect the response. The result was imperfect regeneration, but it included bone, tendon, ligament and joint-like structures.

The conclusion is not that humans are about to start regrowing limbs, nor that a mouse digit is the same as a human arm or leg. It is more interesting than that. The potential for regeneration in mammals may not have vanished completely. It may still be there, hidden beneath the faster, rougher, scar-forming response that natural selection has favoured. For creationists, that raises the awkward question of why their supposed designer would equip other animals with regenerative abilities, leave traces of the same capacity in mammals, and then arrange matters so that, when humans most need it, the system normally fails.

Malevolent Design - Fungi That Turn Spiders Into 'Zombies'

Spider infected with Gibellula pseudosolita

Chang, Chen-xin, et al (2026)

Spider infected with Gibellula pseudosolita

Chang, Chen-xin, et al (2026)

Inside the Hidden World of Spider-Attacking Fungi | Blog


Parasites are hard enough for creationists to force-fit into their predetermined belief that all things were created by an omnibenevolent god, short of resorting to the near-blasphemous claim that 'Sin' somehow gave a rival creator unfettered access to their god's supposedly perfect creation in order to corrupt and destroy it. That rather undermines the claim of perfection in the first place, because a perfect creation, by definition, ought not to be corruptible.

But even harder for creationists to explain are parasites which, judged by their own favourite pseudo-scientific slogans — 'complex specified information' and 'irreducible complexity' — appear exquisitely adapted not merely to parasitise a living organism, but to consume it from within and then use its body as a platform for producing more parasites. In Pensoft's own popular description, these are "zombie" fungi: araneopathogenic fungi that parasitise spiders, mummify them, and then grow spore-producing structures from their bodies.

For example, newly identified spider-attacking fungi have recently been reported in two papers, published respectively in IMA Fungus and MycoKeys. Together, they add to the growing picture of a hidden diversity of highly specialised fungal parasites adapted to exploit spiders in different habitats.

The first is a new species of Purpureocillium fungus, belonging to the Purpureocillium atypicola group: Purpureocillium atlanticum. It was discovered in Brazil's Atlantic Forest, where it infects trapdoor spiders hidden in their burrows in the forest floor. The fungus covers the spider in cotton-white mycelium and eventually sends a purple fruiting structure up from the spider's cephalothorax, allowing spores to be released above the burrow. This discovery also shows that Purpureocillium atypicola, originally discovered in Japan in 1897 and thought to be a single species, is actually a global complex of multiple species.

The second paper reports three new species of Gibellula fungi — Gibellula pseudopigmentosa, Gibellula pseudosolita, and Gibellula sinensis — discovered on spiders in China and Laos. These fungi erupt from spider bodies in stalked, branch-like structures, and the species were distinguished from one another by differences in their reproductive structures, spore-forming bodies and phylogenetic relationships.

Malevolent Designer News - How The Malaria Parasite Is Cleverly Designed to Maximise Suferring

Immune response to
Plasmodium falciparum infection

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

Plasmodium falciparum parasite.

Malaria’s mRNA: Messages that Mess with the Immune System | Weizmann USA

Research is continually revealing just how efficient the human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum, is at making people sick — and, all too often, killing them. There can be few better examples of the sort of intricate, information-rich biological machinery that Discovery Institute Fellows such as Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski insist points to an intelligent designer. Although they are careful never to say so plainly, their dog-whistle signals leave their followers in little doubt that this putative designer is meant to be the god of the Bible and Qur’an. That ambiguity gives them enough wriggle-room to tell courts and educators that Intelligent Design is science, not creationism in a lab coat, while still presenting it to supporters as a moral crusade against “Darwinism”.

Now researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science, in a paper published recently in Cell Reports, have shown yet another reason why this parasite is so successful. Malaria caused an estimated 610,000 deaths in 2024; the WHO African Region accounted for about 95% of those deaths, and children under five made up about three-quarters of the deaths in that region, according to the World Health Organization.

The researchers, led by Professor Neta Regev-Rudzki, discovered that the parasite exports tiny vesicles containing messenger RNA (mRNA), not only into the red blood cells it infects, but also into the host’s monocytes — immune-system cells that should be helping to fight the infection. Once inside the monocyte, the parasite’s mRNA enters the cell nucleus and binds to two essential human proteins, ACIN1 and PNN, which are normally involved in cutting and splicing RNA transcripts so they can be translated into proteins. With this splicing machinery disrupted, crucial immune-related transcripts are misprocessed and degraded, suppressing the production of proteins needed for an effective immune response.

In other words, P. falciparum is not merely hiding from the immune system; it is actively sabotaging part of the host’s cellular communication network from inside the nucleus. The result is a neat evolutionary trick: the immune system is distracted and disrupted while the real threat — parasites multiplying inside red blood cells — continues to spread.

Malevolent Design - Science is Close To Combatting Another Of Creationism's Divine Malevolence's Nasties

AI-generated image (ChatGPT Latest)

Scientists develop first-of-its-kind antibody to block Epstein-Barr virus - Fred Hutch

A recent paper in the Cell Press journal Cell Reports Medicine by researchers at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle reports the development of monoclonal antibodies against Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), a pathogen carried by an estimated 95% of the global human population. The mere existence of such a virus, together with the fact that human scientists have now produced what looks like a promising way of blocking it, should be acutely embarrassing to any creationist prepared to follow the evidence where it leads.

For devotees of creationism’s putative intelligent designer, EBV is an awkward example of its supposed handiwork. It is superbly adapted for what it does: infecting human cells, evading immune defences, and contributing to a range of diseases, including several cancers. If one were looking for something that appears exquisitely “designed” to do harm, EBV would be a strong candidate.

It is especially effective at finding and entering its target cells. The viral glycoprotein gp350 helps it bind to receptors on human cells, while gp42 helps it fuse with and enter them. In other words, it possesses precisely the sort of functional complexity that Intelligent Design advocates such as William Dembski and Michael Behe habitually point to as evidence of design. By their own argument, a system so finely tuned to perform a specific task should count as “specified complexity” or even “irreducible complexity”. The problem, of course, is that the task in question is the infection of human beings by a cancer-associated virus.

Creationists who lean on these arguments are therefore trapped by them. If complexity and functional integration are proof of a designer, then they must also account for the obvious implication: a designer responsible for EBV would have to be, at best, indifferent to human suffering and, at worst, positively malevolent. To escape that conclusion, they usually have to abandon Intelligent Design’s own logic and retreat instead to the theological fallback of “The Fall” and “sin” from the Abrahamic creation myths. In doing so, they quietly concede that their alleged scientific proof of design proves far more than they want it to.

This paper adds a further layer of discomfort. Human scientists have begun to do what any competent and benevolent designer should have done in the first place: devise antibodies capable of blocking the virus from infecting human cells. The study reports monoclonal antibodies against gp350 and gp42, with one anti-gp42 antibody preventing infection in mice with human immune systems. So the obvious question for intellectually honest creationists is this: if human science can engineer a way to interfere with such a pathogen, why was an all-powerful designer unable, or unwilling, to equip us with protection from the outset?

Predictably, most will not confront that question. They will retreat into the familiar refuge of mystery: “we cannot know the mind of God”. But that is precisely where religion and science part company. Science does not declare a problem solved by calling it unknowable. It treats mysteries as challenges to be investigated, understood and, where possible, overcome. That is exactly what these researchers have done with EBV.

Malevolent Design - How Epigenetics Helps Pancreatic Cancer To Spread

Representation of KLF5 expression patterns in lab-grown human pancreatic cancer cells (left) and their patterns of migration from the primary tumor (right). Credit: Andrew Feinberg laboratory, Johns Hopkins Medicine. Originally published in Molecular Cancer.

Growth of Spreading Pancreatic Cancer Fueled By “Under-Appreciated” Epigenetic Changes | Johns Hopkins Medicine

A new paper in Molecular Cancer from Johns Hopkins Medicine describes yet another discovery that should be deeply uncomfortable for Intelligent Design creationists. The researchers found that the spread of pancreatic cancer is driven not chiefly by fresh mutations in DNA sequence, but by epigenetic reprogramming — changes in chromatin organisation and gene activity. In particular, they identified KLF5 as a major driver of metastatic growth, with higher expression in most metastatic lesions than in the matched primary tumours. The paper in Molecular Cancer shows that KLF5 promotes metastatic proliferation through epigenetic modifier genes including NCAPD2 and MTHFD1, helping switch on programmes involved in migration, plasticity and invasion. [1]

What makes this especially important is that epigenetics is not some magical extra layer of “specified information” inserted into life by a supernatural designer. Its roots are ancient. In bacteria, DNA methylation is a major form of epigenetic regulation, involved in gene expression, chromosome replication and DNA repair. In archaea, histone-based chromatin already exists in a form strikingly similar to that of eukaryotes, and studies show that chromatin architecture and its role in regulating gene expression long predate complex multicellular life. In other words, the basic machinery was already there in simpler organisms, doing ordinary cellular housekeeping long before animals and plants ever appeared. [2]

Multicellular organisms did not receive a brand-new control system from an intelligent agent; they inherited this ancient molecular toolkit and elaborated it. As multicellularity evolved, epigenetic regulation expanded and became central to cell differentiation, allowing cells with the same DNA to adopt different stable identities by opening some regions of the genome and closing others. Work on the transition from unicellular to multicellular states in Dictyostelium, for example, shows that chromatin reorganisation and histone modifications are closely tied to the shift into multicellularity, while evolutionary reviews note that epigenetic diversity expanded rapidly with multicellular life and that epigenetic marks are crucial in development and long-lived cell lineages. [3]

And that is exactly why this Johns Hopkins work is such bad news for ID creationists. The same ancient, repurposed system that multicellular organisms rely on for cell specialisation can also be subverted to drive one of the deadliest features of cancer: metastasis. That is what evolved systems do. They are modified from older parts, good enough to work, but never perfect and never immune to catastrophic failure. What this study reveals is not elegant, flawless engineering, but the vulnerability of a historically evolved regulatory system — one that natural selection adapted for development and tissue specialisation, but which disease can hijack with lethal consequences. That is entirely consistent with evolution, and profoundly at odds with the notion of a competent, benevolent designer. [1]

Malevolent Design - How Brain Cells Promote Brain Cancer

AI-Generated image (ChatGPT Latest)

Scientists uncover hidden cells fuelling brain cancer — and a drug that could stop them - McMaster News

Scientists at McMaster University and The Hospital for Sick Children have discovered how a type of brain cell that normally supports healthy brain function can instead go rogue, helping glioblastoma grow and spread. Their findings were recently published in the Cell Press journal Neuron. The prognosis for glioblastoma remains grim, with survival often measured in months.

As putative examples of intelligent design, cells like these should be acutely embarrassing for any creationist willing to follow the evidence where it leads, because within the ID creationist paradigm the only logical conclusion is that the designer is malevolent. By contrast, as examples of how evolution produces workable but imperfect, error-prone systems, they are entirely consistent with the Theory of Evolution and yet another vindication of the science.

Glioblastoma is not simply a mass of malignant cells, but an organised ecosystem sustained by a network of interacting cells. In that sense, it is indistinguishable from the sort of irreducibly complex system that Michael J. Behe claims is evidence of intelligent design. What the researchers found is that a type of cell called an oligodendrocyte, normally responsible for supporting and insulating nerve fibres, can switch roles and actively support tumour growth. These helper cells communicate with cancer cells through a specific signalling system, creating conditions in which the tumour can flourish.

The team discovered that a crucial part of this communication system involves cell-surface receptors called CCR5. By blocking this receptor, tumour growth can be significantly slowed. CCR5 is already the target of the anti-HIV medication Maraviroc, a drug that has already been clinically tested and approved, so it offers a potentially promising treatment for glioblastoma, even if not yet a cure.

Malevolent Design - A Parasitic Fly With All Creationism's Hall Marks for Intelligent Design Is Heading For The USA

Lava of the New World screwworm, Cochliomyia hominivorax.

By John Kucharski - via Wikipedia

The New World screwworm, Cochliomyia hominivorax.

Judy Gallagher, CC BY

An article in The Conversation by Richard Wall, Emeritus Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol, should remind creationists—if they had the wit to understand why—of the theological quagmire into which their favourite leaders have led them.

The Discovery Institute and its fellows, with their reliance on notions such as irreducible complexity and complex specified genetic information, have taken creationism to a point where the only escape lies in three almost equally unacceptable options:

• They can abandon the very arguments they present as proof of intelligent design, and so admit that they have no proof at all.
• They can accept that the designer god they traditionally equate with the god of the Bible and Qur'an is in fact an evil god, relentlessly designing ever more ingenious ways to increase suffering in the world.
• Or they can retreat into theology and Bible-literalist fundamentalism, abandoning any pretence that intelligent design is genuine science rather than simply rebranded creationism, by blaming everything on 'The Fall'. But in doing so they must also admit the existence of some other creative force with powers sufficient to rival their creator god—one to which their god is either powerless or indifferent. That, of course, destroys the basic principle of Judeo-Christian monotheism: a single omnipotent ruling deity. Ironically, the Discovery Institute was established for the very purpose of persuading US legislators and state education officials that intelligent design is real science.

This problem for creationism arises because the notions of irreducible complexity and complex specified genetic information apply just as well—if not better—to parasites and pathogens as they do to those aspects of nature that creationists like to present as evidence of their god's existence and benevolence; in other words, anything that happens to benefit them.

Professor Wall's article concerns a parasitic fly, the New World screwworm, Cochliomyia hominivorax, whose larvae feed on open wounds in cattle and sometimes humans, often with fatal consequences. The fly is currently extending its range northwards through Mexico and has now reached states bordering Texas. His article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Malevolent Design - How Mosquitoes Are Perfectly Designed to Spread Diseases.

Hundreds of Hungry Mosquitoes, a Student Volunteer and a Mesh Suit

What are mosquitoes for?

According to creationist dogma, everything was designed by an intelligent creator for a purpose. So what, exactly, is the purpose of mosquitoes? Because, judged by what they actually do, they appear to have been designed to spread disease. Mosquitoes are among the deadliest animals on Earth, acting as vectors for malaria, dengue, yellow fever, Zika virus and other infections. If an omnipotent, omniscient designer created them, then that designer must have known exactly what they would do. By the logic of creationism itself, mosquitoes were designed for that purpose.

Creationists usually try to escape the implications of this by retreating into theology and blaming “The Fall”. But taken seriously, that excuse creates more problems than it solves. It implies the existence of a second creative force, independent of and apparently beyond the control of creationism’s god, which can redesign living things for harm and produce pathogens capable of exploiting them. In other words, it requires a rival designer with powers alarmingly similar to those creationists reserve for their own deity - something any serious Christian theologian would regard as a serious blasphemy, carrying the risk of eternal damnation.

What creationist leaders dare not admit is that the far better explanation is evolution. There is no need to invent a second supernatural being to explain why mosquitoes are so well adapted to finding human hosts and transmitting disease. Evolution by natural selection explains it perfectly well, without tying theology in knots or making their designer look either incompetent, malevolent, or powerless against a rival entity with god-like creative powers.

This is especially awkward for intelligent design creationists, because they insist that the hallmarks of design are “complex specified information” and “irreducible complexity”. Yet mosquitoes plainly possess precisely those features — at least by creationist standards. Without their finely tuned sensory systems and behavioural adaptations, they could not locate humans so efficiently or spread infection so effectively. In other words, the very traits creationists cite as proof of design would, in this case, be evidence of a designer producing one of the world’s most efficient disease-delivery systems.

That problem was highlighted in a paper published in Science Advances by researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of California, Riverside, led by Professor David Hu.

They showed that mosquitoes use a combination of visual cues and the detection of carbon dioxide exhaled by humans to home in on a target. Of the roughly 3,500 mosquito species, around 100 are anthropophilic, meaning they preferentially feed on humans. Some can even detect a single human in a herd of cattle — all with a brain containing only about 200,000 neurones. The team set out to understand how mosquitoes are so extraordinarily effective at locating a human host from which to take a blood meal, and in the process, transmit disease.

How the team conducted their experiments is described in an article in The Conversation by lead author David Hu. His article is reproduced below under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency.

Unintelligent Design - The DNA Design Blunder That Causes Cancers and Dementia - Malevolence, Incompetence or Evolution?

New research discovers dementia-linked protein’s role in DNA mistakes | Houston Methodist Newsroom

Scientists have discovered that a protein responsible for regulating DNA repair can itself become a source of genomic instability, contributing to cancers and neurodegenerative diseases. The finding provides another example of the fragile and failure-prone complexity that characterises biological systems shaped by evolutionary tinkering rather than the work of a competent designer.

The research, reported in an open access paper published in the journal Nucleic Acids Research, was carried out by a team led by Professor Muralidhar L. Hegde, PhD, professor of neurosurgery at the Houston Methodist Research Institute's Center for Neuroregeneration and Department of Neurosurgery. The team describe how a key regulatory protein, TDP43, which controls the genes involved in DNA repair, can itself become a major cause of genomic instability.

When the regulation of TDP43 fails, the consequences can include cancers, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). The difficulty is that this protein can either be absent or overproduced, and both conditions cause the DNA repair genes it regulates to become overactive, resulting in a destabilised genome. This sort of delicate regulatory balance is exactly what evolutionary biologists expect from systems assembled gradually through natural selection, where new control mechanisms are added to existing processes rather than engineered from scratch.

This presents an awkward problem for creationists who claim that biological complexity is evidence of intelligent design. For those with the intellectual integrity to confront the implications, the findings present a difficult choice. Either accept that evolution provides a coherent explanation for such biological paradoxes, or accept that what is claimed to be evidence of intelligent design instead suggests a designer who is incompetent, malevolent, or possibly both—certainly nothing like the allegedly omnibenevolent god of the Bible and Qur'an.

There are also a couple of additional problems here for ID creationists. First, well-designed DNA should not require an additional layer of complexity in the form of a suite of repair genes, followed by yet another regulatory system to control them. Secondly, a well-designed repair mechanism should not itself require such delicate regulation, and the regulatory system should certainly not fail—let alone fail catastrophically. Within the ID creationist paradigm, this is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a competent and benevolent designer.

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.

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.