Journal of Creation 38(1):19–21, April 2024
Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe
God’s creation: dealing with apparent malevolent design in nature
A review of: Why Did God Create Viruses, Bacteria, and Other Pathogens? by Jerry Bergman and James Hoff
Westbow Press, Bloomington, IN, 2023
Author Jerry Bergman is well known. He is a well-published, award-winning author who has taught microbiology, psychology, and other university courses for over 40 years. James Hoff is a computer designer who holds four major patents in computer technology.
By way of introduction, I once heard an atheist say, “Believers like to talk about the beautiful things in nature, such as apple trees. They are silent about the hideous things in nature, such as tapeworms.” In fact, believers have often written about ‘hideous things’. However, notice how the atheist has changed the argument: from the origins of specified complexity, which he cannot explain in a non-theistic framework of thinking, to the alleged malevolence of some of this complexity. The fact of intelligent design should not be confused with the perceived malevolence of some of the designs. These are two separate issues.
Authors Bergman and Hoff examine some of the things which are sometimes alleged to be incompatible with living things originating from a benevolent Creator. The authors do not get into theology, nor do they explicitly suggest why God allowed ‘malevolent’ things in nature to exist. The authors do not factor in the Fall and its consequences. They do not mention Satan or his role as the corrupter and perverter of things that God created. They stick to science.
Bergman and Hoff, rather than trying to ‘figure God out’, go on to re-examine the usual thinking about the existence of perceived malevolent things in nature. To begin with, they show that ‘malevolent’ elements in nature are greatly exaggerated in numbers. In addition, they can be characterized as malfunctions. They are distortions—often minor ones—of neutral or benevolent elements of nature, or a misplacement of one organism in another organism or another ecological system.
Given a benevolent Creator, why are there bacteria?
Surely no loving God would make such ‘loathsome’ creatures. Think again. Bacteria have numerous essential roles in nature. Bergman and Hoff write:
“Bacteria and most other microbes, often called germs, although often assumed to exist only to cause disease, actually have several critically important functions in our bodies. These include synthesizing vitamins, triggering hormones, and reducing the number of infections caused by harmful bacteria. They also serve numerous critical roles in ecology, such as recycling organic and inorganic materials. Furthermore, they serve other important roles in human life, including synthesizing antibiotics, fixating nitrogen from the air to make fertilizer, and providing a major source of food for humans including yogurt, cheese, and tofu” (p. 59).
How bacteria and viruses acquire pathogenicity
Let us, first of all, keep pathogenic bacteria in perspective. According to the authors (p. 59), less than 8% of all identified species of micro-organisms cause disease, including perhaps 1% of all bacteria (p. 60). The vast majority of bacteria are either directly or indirectly beneficial to humans. Bacteria have a bad reputation because we are prone to single out and study precisely those bacteria that cause disease!
Let us examine how the small percentage of bacteria that are pathogenic got that way. Consider the common innocent intestinal bacterium E. coli (figure 1). One variant of it is very harmful. Bergmann and Hoff write:
“The only difference between the common benign E. coli flora in the human large intestine and the savage O157:H7 strain that can cause lethal bloody diarrhea is that the O157:H7 strain carries an island of pathogenicity in its chromosome, the STX gene, and an unusually large extra chromosomal plasmid. These differences produce the infamous potentially lethal E. coli strain. The O157:H7 bacteria produces actually only one chemical, called Shiga [toxin], that destroys blood vessels, first in the intestines, then in the rest of the body” (pp. 68–69).
Viruses can become pathogenic when they change their hosts. Consider HIV. In humans, it is deadly. But in its original host—the monkey and the baboon—this virus appears to be harmless.
Finally, we must remember that all microorganisms live in equilibrium with the immune systems of the hosts. An imbalance in this equilibrium itself can cause pathogenicity. For instance, Bergman and Hoff comment:
“A critical factor in disease causation is the health of the person infected with microbes. An example is Candida albicans, which is a benign yeast that normally lives in the human mouth without problems but can cause disease in immune-suppressed people” (p. 69).
Let us extend the foregoing reasoning. We can visualize organisms once having such strong immune systems that various micro-organisms could freely colonize these organisms without ever causing them illness.
Those pesky mosquitos
The authors keep these reputed repulsive creatures in perspective. Most mosquitos do not suck blood, and even fewer are able to transmit disease. Mosquitos are no ‘mistake’. For instance, mosquito larvae serve as a crucial food source for many fish. A set of relatively minor modifications can transform harmless mosquitos into pathogenic ones. Bergman and Hoff conclude:
“In short, the evidence leads to the conclusion that no mosquitos were able to serve as a vector of human pathogens until mosquito mutations or abnormalities allowed this condition to develop. This supports the belief that, originally, all life was mutation-(corruption-)free and, as is true of humans and all other life, the mutation load has steadily increased since that time” (pp. 116–117).
Why did God create poisons?
The authors answer this trivial objection. Whether something is poisonous or not depends upon its concentration. At very low levels, selenium and chromium are non-toxic. In fact, they are beneficial. Another example is the Shiga toxin mentioned above. It is among the top five known toxins in terms of smallest median lethal dose (2 ng/kg in mice). However, even Shiga toxin has a beneficial usage in the right dosage: it can target stomach cancers, because the cancer cells have a receptor to the toxin that healthy cells don’t. At high concentrations, even water and oxygen are poisonous. Does this mean that God made a mistake when He created water and oxygen? Of course not.
Authors Bergman and Hoff support the threshold dose concept of radiation damage. They argue that, below about 100 rems, ionizing radiation is harmless to humans. (Some other scientists would disagree.)
Irreducible complexity and intelligent design
The authors change the subject a bit and focus on intelligent design. The simple mousetrap has been used as an example of irreducible complexity. Either all the components are in place, or else the mousetrap does not function at all. There is no such thing as a ‘half mousetrap’. Nor can a mousetrap originate from a step-by-step process. Neither, by analogy, can complex living things arise step-by-step through an incremental evolutionary process.
An argument has been made against the irreducible complexity of the mousetrap by pointing to the fact that its wooden base can be dispensed with if one allows the components to be directly attached to the floor. But this does not eliminate the base: it merely substitutes one wooden base (the floor) for another (the original)! Making a mousetrap while involving a wooden floor is itself a form of irreducible complexity just as much as the original mousetrap.
Other evolutionists have made even more bizarre arguments. Some have said that mice can fall in a hole, and this is somehow supposed to disprove the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity. However, falling into a hole, even if it were to trap the mouse, has no relevance to any kind of purported incremental development of any spring-based mousetrap.
Some have argued against irreducible complexity, citing individual structures within the mousetrap that can serve multiple functions and then become co-opted to serve new functions. However, it is not the individual functions that matter: it is the intelligent design that unites and coordinates all the individual components into a coherent, functioning whole. For example, the spring must be placed in the exact location relative to the other mousetrap elements, and in just the right way, in order for the mousetrap to function at all. Only then can we begin to talk about the function of the spring being ‘co-opted’ (by the designer, not by blind evolutionary processes). The mere fact that a spring can be used in many other devices and for many other purposes is, by itself, completely irrelevant.
Evolutionary co-option is pure ad hoc speculation
The notion that structures can serve multiple functions, and that this can rescue evolutionary explanations, does not even have a leg to stand on, even given the standard evolutionary assumptions. Bergman thus quotes an evolutionist:
“Among these great innovations in design, the crucial inventions of nature, the earliest have left no trace of their development in the fossil record. The organization of living material in a cell wall and a nucleus, the transmission of the blueprint of its design and its means of self-construction, and the very important device of sexual reproduction, all developed in minute organisms which have left little evidence” (p. 160).
The ‘backwards’ retina myth
Evolutionists have argued that the human retina is wired ‘backwards’, and that no Intelligent Designer would make it that way. Once again, the evolutionist is merely stating an opinion, and is changing the argument from the fact of the design (the eye) to his opined inefficiency of the design.
According to this dysteological argument, the nerves that are located in the front of the retina block part of the image that falls on the rods and cones. Bergman reminds us that the retina needs a very disproportionately high blood supply, which requires a rich blood supply (choriocapillaris) in contact with the retinal pigment epithelium. If the nerves were behind the retina, there would be no room for the blood supply in front. Blood is almost opaque, while the wiring in front of the retina forms a fibre-optic plate that improves image sharpness and colour distinction.
However, the question is more basic. Even if, for the sake of argument, the ‘backwards’ human retina was not quite as visually effective as the ‘correctly’ wired one, it would still mean nothing. Human eyes are more than adequate just the way they are. Pointedly, there is no scientific or theological reason that obligates the Creator to give human beings eyes that are as visually acute as those, for example, of the eagle. And eagle eyes are ‘backwardly’ wired too, yet it is hard to call eagle eyes bad! The backwards-retina argument is akin to saying that human legs are ‘bad design’ because, after all, the human being cannot normally outrun the lion.
Evolution is not consensus science
Nowadays, evolutionists usually just dismiss creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. They bully dissenters into shame and silence with the ‘evolution is consensus science’ messaging. Bergman deconstructs this nonsense:
“First of all, this claim is not true. There exist thousands of scientists that do not accept evolution, many in-the-closet due to the hostility of the Darwinian establishment. Many have lost their academic or research positions due to disputing the so-called ‘consensus science’. The consensus that exists is forced; a fact that is well documented in the works listed below. We must not forget that eugenics, scientific racism, use of frontal lobotomies, bloodletting, and other ideas were also once consensus science. They are now an embarrassment to science” (p. 30).
Conclusions
Many items of perceived malevolent design (e.g., pathogenic bacteria) are fairly straightforward modifications of benevolent design (e.g., harmless or helpful bacteria). This leads to a better understanding of such perceived malevolent design—in terms of both theological issues and scientific issues. In either case, we are not in a position where we have to contemplate a Creator who made harmful organisms.
By analogy, let us consider the automobile engine that has lost too much of its motor oil. The observer notices that the engine is overheating and will soon destroy itself. Following the atheists, should we conclude that the designer of the engine created the engine parts so that they would torment each other? Absolutely not. The engine is acting in a manner never intended by its designer. In like manner, we should not blame the Creator for the later malfunctions in His creation. If anything, and from a theological point of view, it is more like a question about the Creator’s providential care, which is a separate issue. Finally, the central issue of specified complexity remains, even if, for the sake of argument, the ‘malevolent’ design is not explained to the satisfaction of the critic.
Readers’ comments
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.