[Mr. Blonde]

Posted this in response:

Just read it. That article was basically an overview of how viruses work and an attempt to cast doubt on evolutionary theory. I find it amusing how he cites lack of evidence for certain evolutionary propositions, yet goes on to state:

"Evidence is accumulating to suggest that most or all harmful viruses and bacteria are mutated forms of non-pathogens."

Overall, this wasn't nearly as bad of an article as I presumed it would be, but it comes down to a question of false premises more than anything. He doesn't necessarily argue for creationism here, nor does he argue (as seen above) against evolution very much. It seems to address the part of the question below:

"whose ***sole function*** seems to be to cause disease and suffering"

It took me finishing the article to realize those 2 words alone were the problem with this proposed argument. The fact of the matter is, anybody with a decent knowledge of evolution and biology KNOWS that viruses aren't simply microscopic, evil, human killing machines set out to make our lives miserable, they obviously serve other purposes. Namely, evolutionary ones. The developed the way they did and currently exist to serve their own purposes of survival and reproduction, and more recent evidence is showing that they indeed did seem to have a crucial impact on the development of human life ( 8% of human DNA comes from viruses: Evolutionary surprise: Eight percent of human genetic material comes from a virus )

So, it's settled then: Viruses sole purposes are not to cause disease and suffering in humans.

Who says believers and those who weren't blessed with belief can't get along?