I found this book to be carefully and thoughtfully written, and particularly like the way his arguments rely heavily on calculations performed on the available data. I have been unable to find any counter argument, so I have begun this discussion.
The following example does not deal with malaria, but it does deal with the way genetic networks operate, and it does show that these systems are robust: there are indeed many solutions to a given problem.
Based on studies such as this, there seems to be no biological justification for deliberately misrepresenting biology, as creationists are wont to do, and then using that misrepresentation to mathematically "stack the deck" against evolution. It may be good religion and good mathematics, but the evidence is showing that it is neither good biology nor good science.
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):
Researchchannel.org
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.