Unintelligent Design - Something Any Intelligent Designer Could Have Done, If It Was Real

The figure depicts the NFR5 kinase structure and juxtamembrane motif

Discovery of a Key Protein Motif Essential for Root Nodule Symbiosis

Scientists at Aarhus University, Denmark, have discovered that barley can be induced to form a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria through a simple substitution of two amino acids in a single protein. This tweak enables barley to initiate the same sort of symbiosis that legumes use to “self-fertilise”. They have published their findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

This is yet another case where we can legitimately ask: if scientists can do it, why didn’t creationism’s supposed intelligent designer do it, if its intent were truly to create a world optimised for human existence? The question remains unanswered, often provoking threats and hysteria on social media, as creationists scramble to cover their confusion with guesses rooted in Christian fundamentalism and Biblical tales of “The Fall”. It’s a core theological patch, while the forlorn Discovery Institute and its fellows remain as silent on this issue as they are on parasites and pathogens—still struggling to sustain the pretence that ID creationism is real science rather than Bible-literalist creationism dressed in a grubby lab coat.

The Aarhus researchers found that a highly conserved protein, present across plant species, plays a crucial role in plant–microbe interactions—presumably as part of the plant’s defence against pathogens. However, in legumes the same protein must be suppressed, because its normal activity prevents formation of the root nodules that act as low-oxygen refuges for the nitrogen-fixing bacteria on which legumes depend. A simple mutation in this protein allows nodule formation in barley, enabling the crop to produce its own nitrogen fertiliser, increasing yields without the expense of artificial fertilisers and without the ecological harm they cause when they leach into waterways.

Unintelliget Designer News - How Frogs Have Evolved To Resist Hornet Stings.

Fearless frogs feast on deadly hornets | Kobe University News site

The venomous stinger of an Asian giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia). The venom injected by this stinger can cause sharp, intense pain as well as local tissue damage and systemic effects such as destruction of red blood cells and cardiac dysfunction, which may even be fatal.

© Shinji Sugiura, Ecosphere 2025 (DOI 10.1002/ecs2.70457) (CC BY)

Does anything eat wasps?

Yes. As I’ve observed myself, the common pond frog eats wasps apparently with impunity. I once watched a frog in our garden pond consume three wasps within a few minutes as they came down to drink. These frogs have, of course, evolved in the presence of wasps.

Now, according to research by Shinji Sugiura at Kobe University, Japan, published today, open access, in the journal Ecosphere, frogs that have evolved alongside an even more dangerous member of the wasp family – the Asian giant hornet – have also evolved resistance to venom that is toxic, even lethal, to many other creatures.

Creationists, however, insist that evolution does not happen and that wasps, frogs, and hornets were all intelligently designed by a supernatural deity synonymous with the god of the Bible and Qur’an. This leaves us wondering why an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, supremely intelligent designer would equip wasps and hornets with a sting to defend themselves against predators, only then to design predators with resistance to that sting.

Creationists normally ignore this question, of course. Even their stock excuse – 'The Fall' – cannot be applied here. Neither frog nor hornet is parasitic on the other, except in the trivial sense that any predator is a “parasite” on its prey. But in this case, the frog appears to be the beneficiary: it gains a meal at no cost, while the wasp or hornet loses its life. And it is difficult to imagine that the genes conferring this immunity do *not

fall within William A. Dembski’s definition of “complex, specified information”. If they do not, then nothing producing a beneficial outcome can be so classified, and his argument for the existence of an intelligent designer collapses.

As the outcome of an evolutionary arms race, both the sting and the resistance in frogs make perfect sense—no need to invoke some forgetful designer who cannot recall what it supposedly created yesterday and treats it as a problem to be solved today.

In the case of these frogs, there may even be two distinct forms of immunity: resistance to pain and resistance to toxicity. It is already known that some hymenopterans deliver an excruciating sting with low toxicity, while others deliver a highly toxic sting with little or no pain.

Unintelligent Design - How The Human Genome Has Mutation-Prone Weak Spots - Incompetence, Malevolence or Evolution?

Mosaic blastocyst

AI-generated image ChatGPT 5.1

If the outcome is pre-ordained, what are all the other sperms for?

New mutation hotspot discovered in human genome | EurekAlert!

Creationists and other religious fundamentalists claim that their god deliberately fashions each human life according to a divine plan — that every individual is personally designed, even down to the genes they inherit from their parents. But this raises a perpetually unanswered question: why produce so many sperm cells, all competing to reach the egg, if the outcome is pre-ordained?

Creationists also insist that our DNA is a “code”, equivalent to a computer program that must have been created by an intelligent designer or programmer.

If that were true, we would expect the genes bestowed on each individual to be robustly designed and immutable.

However, new research by scientists at the Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, just published in Nature Communications, shows that this is not the case — and once again, a prediction of fundamentalist creationism has been falsified by science.

The researchers found that the human genome is especially vulnerable to mutations in the first 100 base pairs of genes, particularly during the earliest rounds of cell division in embryo development. Each division introduces mutations with the potential to cause disease, including cancer. Because these mutations do not appear in every cell of the early embryo, the resulting individual becomes a genetic mosaic, with some cells and tissues carrying certain mutations while others do not. But if the mutated cells give rise to germ cells — eggs or sperm — the mutation can be passed to the next generation, whose members will carry it in all their cells and may develop disease as a result.

Unless creationism’s designer god intended this outcome, or is incompetent, there is no coherent way to present this as the deliberate work of an intelligent designer. It is, however, entirely consistent with an unintelligent, utilitarian evolutionary process that settles for sub-optimal solutions based on a single criterion: what produces the most descendants who themselves reproduce?

Unintelligent Design - How a Design Blunder Causes Severe Mental Health Problems

Universität Leipzig: Changes in a single gene can cause mental illness

A recent study from the University of Leipzig, just published, open access, in Molecular Psychiatry highlights the difference between an intelligently designed system and one which evolved naturally. Change a single gene involved in neurotransmission and the human feature that creationists wave as evidence for intelligent design - the human brain - seriously malfunctions.

The gene, GRIN2A, encodes a key subunit of the NMDA receptor — a molecular gateway through the cell membrane of neurones essential for learning, memory, language development, and the ability of the brain to fine-tune its own wiring. When functioning normally, children learn to speak, form memories, and develop the balanced neural circuits that underpin thought and behaviour. When it doesn’t, the result can be epileptic seizures, speech loss, cognitive impairment, and an increased vulnerability to psychiatric illness. In some cases, even sleep becomes a time of neurological storm activity, with continuous spike-wave patterns eroding normal brain development.

For anyone who understands evolution, this fragility makes perfect sense. For those insisting that the human brain is the product of foresight and planning, it presents a serious problem. It is a system built by evolutionary tinkering, not design. The NMDA receptor is one of the pillars of excitatory communication in the brain. Yet it is also a precarious, expensive and failure-prone piece of biological machinery. A single amino acid substitution in the GRIN2A protein can derail synaptic signalling, scramble brain rhythms, or impair the processes that enable children to acquire language.

This is not what robust design looks like.

Incompetent Design - How Sunlight Turns Off Cancer Protection in Skin

Schematic of the role of YTHDF2 in regulating U6 snRNA decay and interaction with TLR3 to control UVB-induced inflammation and tumorigenesis.

Seungwon Yang, Yan-Hong Cui, Haixia Li, et al.(2025), Fig.7 P

New study reveals how controlling sunburn-triggered inflammation may prevent skin cancer - UChicago Medicine

Researchers at the University of Chicago have uncovered how prolonged exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation can lead to skin cancer by disabling a vital protective mechanism in skin cells. They have just published their findings, open access, in Nature Communications.

This protective mechanism relies on a protein called YTHDF2, which plays a key role in regulating RNA metabolism and maintaining cellular health. Sunlight degrades this protein, removing that safeguard and allowing damage to accumulate.

For advocates of Intelligent Design (ID) creationism, this research presents several awkward questions—questions they will either ignore or attribute to ‘sin’.

First, why is this protection needed at all? If life were intentionally and intelligently designed, why would RNA metabolism require an additional, failure-prone layer of regulation to keep cells functioning? Why not design it to be robust in the first place?

Second, why create a system so fragile that sunlight—an unavoidable feature of life on Earth—can disable it? Designing a repair mechanism that breaks down precisely when it is needed most hardly inspires confidence in the designer’s competence.

And then there is the broader problem: ID creationism equates its designer with the supposedly omniscient and omnipotent god of the Bible or Qur’an. If that is true, why design a mechanism that predictably causes cancer? Was this an act of malevolence or oversight?

If YTHDF2 were flawless and impervious to degradation, Discovery Institute fellow William A. Dembski would no doubt present it as an example of “complex specified information,” a supposed indicator of intelligent purpose. But its vulnerability raises uncomfortable possibilities: Is this an unsuccessful attempt to patch over earlier design flaws in RNA metabolism? A sign of competing designers beyond the control of ID’s putative omnipotent creator? Or evidence that the designer is actively introducing harm and suffering?

The answer, of course, is that this problem arises because the human body is not the product of intelligent design at all, but of a long evolutionary process that modifies existing processes and structures to produce workable—though often imperfect—solutions. Evolution favours whatever improves short-term reproductive success, even if it introduces compromises and sub-optimal outcomes that undermine long-term survival and health. These sub-optimal systems then drive the evolution of an additional layers of complexity to minimise the results of failure.

Like other organism's the human body is full of these examples of evolutionary compromises and sub-optimal solutions that cause diseases and health problems that illustrate the difference between an intelligently designed system and an evolved system. Looked at in detail, the human body is evidence against intelligent design and strongly supports the Theory of Evolution, as I show in my book, The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design.

Malevolent Designer News - Stunning 3D Images of the Yellow Fever Virus Reveal It's Irreducible Complexity - Malevolent Design or Evolution

High-resolution imaging of yellow fever virus reveals structural secrets that could power next-generation vaccines.

UQ scientists uncover secrets of yellow fever - News - The University of Queensland
Scientists at the University of Queensland, Australia, have produced near atomic-level 3D images of the yellow fever virus. These reveal the remarkable complexity that Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski of the Discovery Institute insist constitutes evidence of intelligent design – a theme almost universally endorsed by creationists and forming the central plank of their advocacy for creationism.

They have recently published their findings, open access, in the journal Nature Communications.

So, the obvious question for intelligent design advocates is this: is the irreducible complexity and complex specificity of the yellow fever virus evidence that it was intelligently designed to kill people? Or, when complex specified information and irreducible complexity do harm to humans, do these supposed ‘evidences’ for the existence of an intelligent designer (i.e. a god) somehow cease to apply, even though they benefit the virus? If so, how can a supposedly scientific definition change its meaning depending on the subjective judgement of what is being specified and how much or how little it benefits humans?

Unintelligent Design - The Design Blunder That Causes Many Diseases - Malevolence or Incompetence?

Glutathionylated mtDNA

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.1)

New type of DNA damage found in our cells’ powerhouses | UCR News | UC Riverside

Scientists led by the University of California, Riverside (UC Riverside) have identified a previously unknown form of DNA damage in mitochondria that may underlie a wide range of disorders linked to mitochondrial dysfunction. Their findings have just been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Mitochondria contain their own DNA (mtDNA), which is essential for the proper functioning of these organelles that convert glucose into ATP, supplying cells with the energy needed to power metabolic processes.

The culprit is a large molecule, glutathionylate, which attaches to DNA and, if left unrepaired, can cause mutations. Researchers at UC Riverside, working with colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, found that glutathionylated mtDNA accumulates in mitochondria at levels up to 80 times higher than in the cell nucleus. In short, the nuclear DNA repair system is vastly more efficient than its mitochondrial counterpart.

For advocates of Intelligent Design (ID), this discovery—if they understood it rather than dismissing it as part of an imagined conspiracy to undermine their faith—creates an acute theological problem. If we temporarily grant the core assumption of ID creationism, that a supernatural designer indistinguishable from the allegedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god of the Bible and Qur’an is responsible for the design of mitochondrial DNA and its replication machinery, then only two coherent conclusions follow:

• the designer is incompetent, having failed to produce fault-free mtDNA and an adequate repair mechanism, despite supposedly managing this for nuclear DNA; or
• the designer could have produced fault-free mtDNA but chose instead to create error-prone mtDNA and a weak repair process, thereby intentionally designing disease and suffering—in other words, malevolence.

Moreover, the very need for a repair system betrays the absence of omnipotent, intelligent engineering. It is characteristic instead of the layered complexity produced by cumulative, unplanned evolutionary processes, which inevitably yield sub-optimal compromises.

The notion of an omniscient designer also rules out the excuse that the harmful consequences were unforeseeable. An all-knowing creator would have foreseen them; yet, according to ID logic, the designer implemented them regardless—designing mitochondrial DNA to fail and cause disease.

Thus, a biological phenomenon that fits seamlessly within the framework of evolutionary theory becomes an insurmountable theological obstacle for ID advocates, who must contort the evidence to suit a predetermined conclusion while catering to a scientifically illiterate and credulous audience.

Unintelligent Design - The Defect that Causes Alzheimer's - Incompetence or Malevolence?

Exosomes

Researchers discover cell defect linked to the development of Alzheimer’s

Researchers at Aarhus University in Denmark have identified a defect in the production of exosomes within cells, linked to a mutation found in patients with dementia. Their findings are published in the journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, *Alzheimer’s & Dementia*.

Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that all genetic information must originate from an intelligent agent, claiming that anything both complex and specified cannot arise without deliberate design. Their proposed designer is invariably indistinguishable from the god of the Bible and Qur’an: an all-knowing, all-powerful and supposedly benevolent creator.

What they never address is why a system attributed to such a being should fail at all—let alone in ways that cause profound suffering. It is akin to a human engineer producing an aircraft with engines that randomly fail or wings that detach mid-flight. And because this designer is held to be omniscient, the failure cannot be inadvertent. It must have been foreseen and deliberately incorporated, making such mutations part of the intended plan rather than unfortunate accidents.

Following the internal logic of ID creationism, Alzheimer’s dementia would therefore count as an intended outcome—meeting William Dembski’s own criteria for “complex specified genetic information”. This provides yet another instance, alongside the cancer example I discussed recently, of biological processes that appear designed to destroy. It sits comfortably among the many parasites and pathogens explored in The Malevolent Designer: Why Nature’s God is Not Good, all pointing to a distinctly malign pattern in the supposed “design”.

ID proponents typically fall back on blaming “The Fall”, implying the existence of another creative force beyond the control of their designer. This manoeuvre only further undermines their claim that ID is a scientific enterprise rather than creationism thinly disguised, since it relies on biblical literalism to rescue the argument from the conclusion of an incompetent or malevolent designer—an outcome that is theologically awkward and, for many believers, outright heretical.

Malevolent Design - How Some Cancers Are Designed to Win - Incompetence or Malevolence?

Cancer cells dividing

Shapeshifting cancers’ masters, unmasked | Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Scientists led by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) Professor Christopher Vakoc have uncovered a mechanism by which certain cancers manage to evade modern medical treatments: they can disguise themselves as ordinary cells from entirely different tissues, such as those of the skin. In two recent papers — one in Nature Communications and another in Cell Reports — Vakoc’s team identify the proteins that determine whether pancreatic cancer cells retain their pancreatic identity or slip into a skin-cell-like state. They also highlight a different set of proteins with a pivotal role in tuft-cell lung cancer.

Proteins, of course, are specified by genetic information, and if that information is altered, so too is the protein’s function. In the language of ID creationists, proteins are products of “complex, specified genetic information”.

This presents intelligent design creationists with a familiar problem — one they usually address, as with parasites and pathogens, by ignoring it and relying on the scientific illiteracy of their followers. If complex, specified information were genuinely evidence of an intelligent designer, then that same designer would be implicated in the origin of the proteins that maintain and diversify cancers. Their “specified information” is neither less complex nor less specific than the proteins involved in cognition, immunity, or embryonic development.

Only by refusing to define “complex specificity” in scientific terms — or to explain how it might be distinguished from information that is supposedly non-complex or non-specified — do ID advocates manage to maintain the fiction that all beneficial traits are the work of their designer, while harmful traits must arise from some other agency. This selective attribution, based entirely on subjective human preference, underscores the religious foundations of intelligent design creationism and its distance from genuine science.

The team’s findings are summarised in a Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory news release by Jen A. Miller.

Unintelligent Design - How Wheat Could Have Been Designed To Give Tripple The Yield

A spike of wheat showing three grains clustered within each spikelet, where there is ordinarily just one.

Credit: Vijay Tiwary,
University of Maryland

Wheat monoculture - but it could have been better designed!

Scientists Discover a Gene that Could Triple Wheat Production | College of Agriculture & Natural Resources at UMD

News that a single mutant gene could triple wheat yields raises some uncomfortable questions for Bible-literalist creationists, and indeed for anyone who believes their god created the Earth and all life on it exclusively for humans — its supposed favoured species, for whom “all of creation” was made.

This belief has profoundly shaped Western attitudes towards the planet and its resources. One consequence of this selfish worldview has been the destruction of vast areas of the Earth, its ecosystems, and the countless species that depend on them. In the relentless search for mineral wealth, cropland, and grazing land, humans have transformed immense regions into effective monocultures which, to anything not adapted to those particular crops, might as well be deserts. Moreover, the same belief — coupled with the idea that brown and black people were inferior to whites and therefore “created” to serve Europeans — helped justify imperialism and the transatlantic slave trade.

One question that creationists, in my experience, consistently shy away from is this: if an omniscient god truly created our domestic animals for our use, why have we almost always had to modify them through selective breeding to make them more useful? It’s as though this god didn’t actually know what we would need or how we would use these animals. Which leads to the obvious follow-up question: why didn’t this supposedly omniscient being create ideal domestic plants and crops in the first place?

Malevolent Design - How Creationism's 'Designer' Favoured The Naked Mole Rat

DNA repair mechanisms help explain why naked mole-rats live a long life

News that scientists have discovered what enables the naked mole-rat to live for up to 37 years — around ten times longer than relatives of a similar size — raises a troublesome question for creationists. The findings were reported recently in Science by a team of researchers from the Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine.

Creationists like to flatter themselves with the notion that they are the favoured creation of their putative designer god and the ultimate expression of design perfection. So, when evidence emerges of other species surpassing humans in some way — bats with more robust immune systems, elephants and sharks being almost completely immune to cancers, peregrine falcons with far superior vision — it is typically ignored, met with incredulity, or dismissed as an ineffable mystery and part of some divine plan which in no way diminished the unique position of humans in the grand scheme.

Now, to add to their woes, comes the discovery that the secret of the naked mole-rat’s extraordinary longevity may be traced to changes in just four amino acids. This alone undermines creationist claims that mutations are always harmful and incapable of generating new genetic information.

Unintelligent Design - The Needless Complexity That Produces Orchids

Cremastra variabilis

Cremastra variabilis

Deadwood brings wild orchids to life | Kobe University News site

An interesting open-access paper, recently published in the journal, Functional Ecology, by two researchers from Kobe University, Japan, explains the complex, symbiotic relationship between an orchid and a wood-decomposing fungus, not only between the fungi and the adult plants that depend on the fungi to provide the orchid with nutrients, but also for the orchid seed to germinate.

This complex relationship appears to benefit the orchid because it can live in otherwise nutrient-poor conditions. However, from an intelligent design perspective, it makes no sense at all because an omnipotent, omniscient designer could have endowed the orchid with the genetic machinery to do what the fungus does.

The relationship between the seeds and the fungus is even more bizarre. The seeds, unlike those of other plants, are devoid of nutrients and therefore need the fungus to supply some. Orchid seeds are notoriously small, being almost invisible to the naked eye. Contrary to Jesus’s bizarre reputed claim in the Bible that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, orchid seeds are orders of magnitude smaller.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Matthew 13: 31–32

The mustard seed is not only not the smallest of seeds but also doesn’t grow into a tree!

Contrary to what creationists have been conditioned to believe, one of the hallmarks of good, intelligent design is minimal complexity because the simpler a process is, the fewer opportunities there are for it to go wrong.

The converse is true for evolved organisms and processes because there is no plan or foresight in evolution, which can only build on what is already present, and natural selection prioritises utility, based solely on what is better than what preceded it. Consequently, evolved organisms are a collection of suboptimal compromises, and there is selection pressure to minimise failures with another layer of complexity.

This has led to confusion in creationist thinking, which associates complexity with intelligent design as they try to force-fit what can be observed with their need to have a role for their particular deity — especially in their own ‘design’ — giving them a sense of importance that being ‘merely’ the product of evolution doesn’t give them.

Uninteligent Design - How The Process of Germ Cell Production Goes Wrong And Creates Genetic Defects.

Paired chromosomes showing crossovers in a mouse oocyte.

Hunter lab

Left panel: short green irregular lines arranged in pairs. Right: Close up of one pair shows that the two strands form a cross shape. Paired chromosomes showing crossovers in a mouse oocyte.

Hunter lab.

Landmark Discovery Reveals How Chromosomes Are Passed From One Generation to the Next | UC Davis

This article continues my series exploring the many ways in which the human body demonstrates unintelligent design. Far from being the perfect handiwork of a benevolent creator, our anatomy and physiology are full of flaws, inefficiencies, and dangerous vulnerabilities. Each of these makes sense in light of evolution by natural selection—an opportunistic, short-term process that tinkers with existing structures—but they make no sense at all if we are supposed to be the product of an all-wise designer.

Creationists often argue from a position of ignorant incredulity, claiming that complexity implies intelligent design, when in fact the opposite is true. The hallmark of good, intelligent design is simplicity, for two very simple reasons: first, simple things are easier to construct and require fewer resources; and second, simple structures and processes have fewer potential points of failure, making them more reliable.

In short: complexity is evidence against intelligent design and in favour of a mindless, utilitarian, natural process such as evolution.

In addition to being minimally complex, another characteristic we would expect of something designed by an omniscient, maximally intelligent, and benevolent designer is that the process should work perfectly, every time, without fail.

The problem for creationists is that their favourite example of supposed intelligent design — the human body — is riddled with complexity in both its structures and processes. This complexity provides countless examples of systems that fail to perform adequately, or fail altogether, with varying frequency. Many failures occur in the layers of complexity needed to control or compensate for the inadequacies of other systems, and when those compensatory mechanisms themselves fail, the result can be a cascade of dysfunctions or processes running out of control. The consequences manifest as diseases, defects, and disabilities — hardly the work of an all-wise designer.

They are, however, exactly what we would expect from a mindless, utilitarian process like evolution, which prioritises short-term survival and reproduction, selecting only what is better — sometimes only marginally better — than what preceded it, rather than seeking optimal solutions. I have catalogued many such suboptimal compromises in the anatomy and physiology of the human body, and the problems that arise from them, in my book, The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design, one of my Unintelligent Design series.

Just yesterday, I wrote about research suggesting that autism may be a by-product of the rapid evolution of intelligence in humans. Now we have another striking example of extreme biological complexity which, when it goes wrong, can have catastrophic consequences: the production of eggs in women and sperm cells in men.

Refuting Creationism - How Autism May Be The Result Of Compromise In The Evolution Of Human Intelligence

Trump 'fact checking' his autism claim

How evolution explains autism rates in humans | EurekAlert!

If the human genome had been intelligently designed by an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent supernatural deity, as creationists insist, it should be perfect and free from defects of any sort. In fact, it is difficult to see why there would be any variance in such an intelligently designed genome, let alone variance that causes genetic defects—unless those were intentionally included by the designer, who then cannot reasonably be described as omnibenevolent or omniscient.

If, however, the human genome is the product of hundreds of millions of years of gradual evolutionary processes — processes that prioritise survival and reproduction, with all the sub-optimal compromises that a utilitarian form of ‘design’ entails — then variance and defects are exactly what we would expect.

Creationists traditionally ignore questions about the origin of variance in a supposedly ‘perfect’ intelligently designed genome. The existence of genetic defects is usually explained away by resorting to Bible-literalist mythology about ‘The Fall’ — an abandonment of the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Strategy, which seeks to present creationism as real science rather than a fundamentalist religion dressed in a lab coat. News that autism may in fact be a by-product of the evolution of intelligence in humans will therefore be an even greater problem for creationists, who insist that our high intelligence sets us apart as the special creation of a perfect god.

Ironically, as well as possessing high intelligence, humans — unlike any other primates — also have autism and schizophrenia. It is this correlation that provides a clue to their shared evolutionary origins.

My book, The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design, lists lots of examples of how the human body is the result of these sub-optimal evolutionary compromises with all the problems that has produced. This example is just another instance and more evidence of the lack of intelligence in the process.

Malevolent Designer News - How Candida Albicans (Thrush) Is Cleverly Designed to Infect Your Mouth - Evolution Or Malevolent Design?

The yeast fungus Candida albicans (blue) breaks out of human immune cells (red) by forming long thread-like cells called hyphae. The part of the hypha that has already left the immune cells is coloured yellow.

© Erik Böhm, Leibniz-HKI

The dose makes the difference - Leibniz-HKI

As has often been pointed out in these blog posts, the "evidence" offered by Discovery Institute fellows William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe for an intelligent designer can, by the same logic and using the same evidence, be interpreted as pointing to a theologically awkward malevolent designer. This is a line of reasoning routinely ignored by the "Cdesign proponentcists", who prefer to overlook the many examples of parasites and pathogens—and the evolutionary traits that make them so successful at invading and surviving within their hosts.

A fresh example that creationists will either have to ignore or blame on "The Fall" comes from researchers at the Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology. They have shown that the fungus Candida albicans, which causes thrush, has evolved a highly sophisticated and "finely tuned" mechanism for infecting the human mouth while evading the immune system.

The stock creationist response is to shift responsibility onto the biblical myth of "The Fall," retreating into Bible literalism. Yet this is precisely the kind of literalism the Discovery Institute has been at pains to insist is not essential to the notion of intelligent design, which it markets as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory—or "Darwinism," as they prefer to call it. This rhetorical sleight of hand was central to the Institute’s "Wedge Strategy," devised after the 1987 US Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard, which confirmed that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The new research reveals that C. albicans produces a toxin called candidalysin in carefully regulated doses that allow it to infiltrate the mucous lining of the mouth. Too little candidalysin, and the fungus would fail to establish itself; too much, and it would trigger an immune response strong enough to destroy it. Normally, C. albicans exists in a round, yeast-like form, but under the "right" conditions it can switch into the filamentous hyphal form typical of fungi. This transformation allows it to penetrate host tissues and, in immune-compromised patients, become life-threatening. It is in this invasive hyphal state that C. albicans produces candidalysin.

The production of hyphae, and therefore candidalysin, is controlled by the gene EED1. By any definition, EED1 would qualify as an example of "complex specified information" according to Dembski’s own formulation — evidence, according to the Discovery Institute, of supernatural intelligent design.

Refuting Creationism - The Lengths Plants Will Go To Just To Get Pollinated - No Intelligence Needed

chloropid flies on a Vincetoxicum nakaianum flower.

The grass fly visiting the flowers (A) and kleptoparasiting spider hunting ant (B)

Press Releases - SCHOOL OF SCIENCE THE UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO

The driving force behind evolution is reproductive success, so in a broad sense every adaptation can be seen as a reproductive strategy. Few, however, are as peculiar as that of Vincetoxicum nakaianum, a dogbane species native to Japan. Rather than relying on nectar rewards or visual lures to attract pollinators, this plant enlists the services of kleptoparasitic chloropid flies — insects that usually home in on the scent of injured prey in order to steal a meal.

In a remarkable twist, the flowers of V. nakaianum release chemical signals that closely mimic the odour of ants under attack by predators, especially spiders. Drawn in by what they perceive as the scent of a potential victim to exploit, the flies inadvertently collect and deposit pollen as they move from flower to flower. This unusual strategy has now been documented in detail in a study led by Ko Mochizuki of the University of Tokyo, published in Current Biology, and described in a University of Tokyo School of Science press release.

What makes this particularly striking is how roundabout and intricate the mechanism is. If an intelligent designer had set out to ensure pollination, far simpler methods are available — from bright colours and nectar rewards to direct reliance on wind. Instead, V. nakaianum has evolved a convoluted route, exploiting the specialised behaviour of flies that themselves depend on the predation of ants by spiders. Such elaborate, contingent solutions are precisely what we expect from evolution by natural selection acting over countless generations, not from foresightful design.

Malevolent Design - How Our Gut Microbiome is 'Designed' to Destroy Our Kidneys - Malevolence or Evolution?

Kidney fibrosis linked to molecule made by gut bacteria – News Bureau

Mostly, our gut microbes are beneficial or at least neutral because we have co-evolved and reached an accommodation. One benefit we derive from their presence is that they make life difficult for potentially harmful organisms, if only by monopolising the available resources and occupying the niches in our gut.

There is a downside, of course, as in any evolved system, which is inevitably a compromise and can tip over into pathology under certain circumstances. But overall, because the disadvantages are more than compensated for by the benefits, the system has evolved and been maintained.

However, a newly discovered downside is that a Staphylococcus species may be implicated in one of the serious complications of diabetes mellitus (DM) — kidney fibrosis and ultimately kidney failure. The discovery was made by researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Mie University in Japan, co-led by Professor Isaac Cann of Illinois and Professor Esteban Gabazza of Mie University. The bacterium is believed to produce corisin — a small peptide — which is found at high levels in patients with diabetic kidney fibrosis. The researchers have just published their findings, open access, in Nature Communications.

For creationists, this sort of discovery is always a problem, one they normally ignore or blame on “Eve’s sin,” revealing ID creationism for what it is — Bible literalism in a lab coat — which must retreat into mystical theology when faced with problems ID cannot address. Yet creationists also claim that their omniscient creator god is personally responsible for the design of organisms such as Staphylococcus. That would mean it knowingly endowed Staphylococcus with the genes to make corisin, along with all the harmful consequences.

Taking William A. Dembski’s “complex specified genetic information,” which supposedly produces a specific outcome, at face value, the staphylococcal genes are equally “proof” of intelligent design. And so we end up with an unresolved paradox for ID creationism: “complex specified” genes that do us harm, standing as evidence of malevolent design.

Malevolent Design - How The Poxvirus is 'Intelligently Designed' To Rapidly Multiply

A Survival Kit for Smallpox Viruses - Universität Würzburg

The tRNA ensures the cohesion of the polymerase and the associated factors; without it, they would not arrange themselves in this way.

Image: Clemens Grimm.

Researchers at Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg (JMU) have discovered that poxviruses have developed a unique strategy to multiply rapidly after infecting a host cell. They achieve this by assembling a large protein complex with the help of a transfer RNA (tRNA) molecule. Remarkably, this is the first known example of a ‘chaperone’ function being carried out by a tRNA rather than a protein. Each component of the assembly plays a specific role in the production of new poxviruses. Crucially, the complex only functions when all parts are correctly assembled, and the tRNA is indispensable for this construction.

In other words, the tRNA provides the essential element of the complex, which some might describe—using the Discovery Institute’s own terms—as containing “complex specified information” and forming an “irreducibly complex” system essential to the virus’s success.

By that same logic, it follows that the viruses responsible for smallpox and mpox (monkeypox) must have been intelligently designed. This leaves creationists with an unenviable dilemma:

• Accept the Discovery Institute’s definitions and admit their designer created deadly viruses — theologically awkward.
• Claim another intelligence designs life, beyond their god’s control — even more awkward.
• Abandon the Institute’s “evidence” for intelligent design — politically awkward.

Unintelligent Design - When Snakes Borrow Genes from the Sea - It's Fatal To Creationism

Tiger Snake, Notechis scutatus

Credit: Max Tibby- Snake Catchers Adelaide

A Western Brown snake, Pseudonaja nuchalis

By Andy - originally posted to Flickr as Western Brown, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

New study unlocks mystery origin of iconic Aussie snakes | Newsroom | University of Adelaide

Intrigued by the information I unearthed while researching for my recent blog post about Australia's elapsid snakes and how skinks have evolved resistance to their venom, I discovered that these snakes have evolved from a common ancestor that once lived in the sea, and, while there, picked up a number of 'jumping genes' that are only found in marine animals as diverse as fish, sea squirts, sea urchins, bivalve molluscs and turtles.

The more we learn about genomes, the clearer it becomes that evolution is not a neat or predictable process—it is messy, opportunistic, and deeply influenced by historical contingency. A striking example of this comes from a recent genomic study that traced the origins of Australia’s iconic elapid snakes—not just through their DNA, but through the foreign DNA embedded within it. Researchers have identified at least 14 distinct horizontal gene transfer (HGT) events in these snakes, in which transposable elements—“jumping genes” — from unrelated marine organisms such as fish, tunicates, molluscs, and turtles have been incorporated into the snake genome.

This is compelling evidence that the ancestors of modern Australian elapids passed through a marine environment, acquiring genetic material from the organisms they encountered there. The transfers are not random. They show ecological specificity, temporally sequenced occurrence, and a nested pattern of inheritance — hallmarks of an evolutionary process rather than the actions of an intelligent designer.

For proponents of Intelligent Design creationism, this presents a serious interpretive problem. The idea that different species share features because of a “common designer” does not explain why Australian elapids should contain such a unique suite of genes from marine animals—genes absent in closely related snakes that remained on land. Nor does it account for the fact that many of these sequences serve no obvious function, are neutral or even mildly deleterious, and resemble the genetic detritus typical of unguided evolution.

ID advocates will likely claim this is just more evidence of “design reuse” or “genetic toolkits.” But such claims are not only ad hoc; they fail to explain the clear environmental and phylogenetic patterns observed in the data. The evolutionary explanation, by contrast, is both predictive and parsimonious: snakes dispersed through a marine environment, interacted with marine organisms, and as a result, their genomes bear the signature of that history.
In what follows, we will explore how this discovery not only sheds light on the evolutionary past of Australian elapids, but also exposes the weaknesses in ID’s core explanatory framework. The genome of a snake tells a story—and it's not the story of design.

Malevolent Design - We COULD Have Been Designed To Re-Grow Lost Or Damaged Eyes - Malevolence Or Evolution?

Golden apple snail, Pomacea canaliculata

This Snail’s Eyes Grow Back: Could They Help Humans do the Same? | UC Davis

First, we had the example of Australian lizards which, unlike humans, have been endowed with immunity to snake venom through a simple mutation — the kind of change that creationists like William A. Dembski of the Discovery Institute would insist is the result of "intelligent design" because it is both complex and specified.

Now we have the example of the aquatic golden apple snail, Pomacea canaliculata, which — again, unlike humans — can regenerate a lost or damaged eye. The snail’s eye is genetically and structurally similar to the mammalian eye, so there appears to be no reason why an omnibenevolent, omniscient intelligent designer could not have endowed humans and other animals with that ability too. And of course, according to William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe, the irreducibly complex eye and the complex, specified genetic information are both evidence for intelligent design by the same intelligent designer that designed the mammalian eye and it genetic underpinning.

Creationists, of course, believe that humans are the pinnacle of their putative intelligent designer’s work. So, from their viewpoint, the only reasons it didn't grant us the ability to regenerate eyes — or to resist snake venom — must be that it either didn’t want to, didn’t think to, or didn’t know how to. Yet all of those options are inconsistent with the claimed attributes of being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Which leaves us with only one other explanation: that it wants us to suffer when we damage or lose an eye.

All rather strange, really — especially considering that, according to the Bible, God views blemishes such as blindness as a form of profanity:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

Leviticus 21:16-24

Almost as an added insult to the humans it denied this regenerative ability to, while giving it to golden apple snails, the golden apple snail is a major invasive agricultural pest which causes widespread damage to rice crops, when it gets into paddy fields.