Evil designer thesis has better evidence

The Evil Designer thesis has better empirical support than the Benevolent Designer thesis.

Premise: If a designer exists, the structure of the natural world often reflects cruelty, and pain, rather than harmony or compassion. The reproductive biology of the anglerfish is a strong piece of evidence in favor of this view.

In many deep-sea anglerfish species, the male is tiny compared to the female.

The male’s sole biological function is to find a female in the vast, dark ocean.

Once he does , he bites into her body and his tissues fuse with hers.

He loses his eyes first, then his organs, hus brain does not remain a functioning, independent control center. It atrophies (shrinks and loses function) along with the rest of his body

He becomes essentially a permanent sperm-producing appendage.

We've called this process sexual parasitism.

The anglerfish is not an isolated case either. Parasitic wasps eat hosts alive, and predation systems require prolonged suffering.

If we infer the nature of a designer from the evidence available, then the anglerfish’s reproductive system is far more consistent with a designer who is indifferent, cruel, or at least unconcerned with suffering. This supports the Evil Designer thesis more strongly than any evidence supports a benevolent one.

This also fits into a broader pattern: nature is full of mechanisms that prioritize survival over wellbeing. That's fine for the amoral natural processes of evolution which have no moral framework.

But a god? A god that people claim is the source of objective morality?

Based on the observable evidence, objective morality is one based on a sadistic psychopath, not a being of love peace and life.