Evolution of antibotic resistance makes case for God

Below Faz Rana of RTB tries to make the case that antibiotic resistance makes a case for the Christian God. He fails miserably.


He actually makes the case for an uncaring God who created infection and then did nothing to help humans live better and longer lives. Why did humanity have to wait for Fleming to discover antibiotics to curse disease? God didn’t care about people dying of infection for millions of years prior? Or was God unable to do anything about it? Or perhaps God doesn’t exist and humans are on their own having to use their own reasoning to figure out how to fight infection?

If God exists and can impact evolution, why hasn’t or doesn’t he doing anything to help? Again God is either 1) unable to do anything about it, 2) God is an uncaring prick who could help but doesn’t, or 3) God doesn’t exist.

All that Faz keeps doing is to describe the achievement of human reasoning and science and then at the end invokes an intelligent mind aka the Christian God.

No Faz, antibiotic resistance doesn’t make the case for a benevolent God. Faz actually makes the case for an impotent, an uncaring God or an non-existent God. Take your pick Faz.

1 Like

Later on Faz argues that convergence is strong evidence for the Christian God

From my perspective, the widespread occurrence of convergent evolution is a feature of biology that evolutionary theory can’t genuinely explain. In fact, given the clear-cut demonstration that the evolutionary process is historically contingent, I see the widespread occurrence of convergence as a failed scientific prediction for the evolutionary paradigm.

Which is just plain silly. Different species hit on similar solutions because there are only a finite number of physical solutions to the problems they face. Similar selection pressures create similar results. Sharks and dolphins are streamlined instead of cubic because a streamlined shape is most efficient moving through water.

Faz’ reasoning is like saying since a rock dropped off the Empire State building, the Eiffel Tower, and the Taj Mahal all fall at the same rate that is evidence gravity is designed.



There are many cases where antibiotic resistance is due to a single mutation, so it isn’t surprising at all that the same random mutation can happen more than once in separate bacteria. It is no more surprising than more than one person having the same winning lottery numbers given a large number of tickets.

Faz would also need to explain why different convergent solutions are found in different lineages, such as the dolphin and shark front fin that looks the same superficially but has lineage specific differences in the underlying skeletal structure.


If convergence is evidence for God, is divergence evidence against it?


More from Fazale Rana on Convergence:

No known evolutionary mechanism can account for the nature of biological convergence. Convergence has been far too common throughout life’s history, has involved exceedingly complex structures, and has occurred in situations in which the forces of natural selection have been vastly different. Biological convergence is an important component in the argument that life, throughout Earth’s history, is a result of the supernatural activity of a Creator.


Now convergence is exactly what I would expect to happen under natural selection. Available ecological niches open up, and the environmental pressures associated with those niches select for similar solutions. So sharks and orca whales have similar body plans despite very different physiology due to lineage. If I was arguing for special creation of species, I would be downplaying convergence.

1 Like

The mechanisms are random mutation and natural selection. They are well known.


Has it? Where’s Fazale’s model of how much convergence should happen?


There wasn’t any attempt at quantification or rigor in Fazale’s article. It is marked by phrases such as
“woefully inadequate”, “extremely rare”, “difficult to accept”, “more challenging”, all just because Fazale says so. One is almost left perplexed, because you get to the end of his paper and are left wondering, huh, where was the argument?


Fazale Rana isn’t trying to persuade any of the folks who have commented in this thread so far. His target audience include some of the other members of this forum, however, who will probably find his “arguments” very persuasive.

1 Like

I just don’t understand the convergence arguments. These same or similar solutions are being reached by different pathways. But at the same time the same people are arguing that a certain function is rare and can’t evolve. I feel like these two arguments are in tension. Just like the fine-tuning argument and origin of life argument.


Trying to make sense of YEC arguments is a no-win proposition.


That was an OEC argument.

1 Like