FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?

Discovery Health & Multiple Medical Sites ^ | 11/11/05

[Wolfstar]

Each year in the United States, about 150,000 babies are born with birth defects ranging from mild to life threatening. While progress has been made in the detection and treatment of birth defects, they remain the leading cause of death in the first year of life. Birth defects are often the result of genetic and environmental factors, but the causes of well over half of all birth defects are currently unknown.

Following is a partial list of birth defects:

Achondroplasia/Dwarfism	Hemochromatosis
Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency	Huntington's Disease
Anencephaly	Hydrocephalus
Arnold-Chiari Malformation	Klinefelter's Syndrome
Ataxia Telangiectasia	Leukodystrophies
Blood coagulation disorders/Hemophilia	Marfan Syndrome
Brain malformations/genetic brain disorders	Metabolic disorders
Canavan Disease	Muscular Dystrophy
Cancer: Neonatal, newborn, infant and childhood	Neural tube defects/Spina Bifida
Cerebral Palsy	Neurofibromatosis
Cleft lip and palate	Niemann-Pick Disease
Club foot/club hand	Osteogenesis Imperfecta (brittle bone disease)
Congenital heart disease	Phenylketonuria
Conjoined twins	Prader-Willi Syndrome
Cystic Fibrosis	Progeria (advanced aging in children)
Down Syndrome	Sickle Cell Anemia
Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome	Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Eye, ear and speech defects	Tay-Sachs Disease
Fragile X Syndrome	Tuberous Sclerosis
Gaucher's Disease	Turner's Syndrome
Genital and urinary tract defects	Wilson's Disease

Some birth/genetic defects, such as near-sightedness, are mild and do not affect the person's ability to lead a normal life. Others are so severe that the person has no chance to even live. Efficiency and economy are part of intelligently designed systems. If the "design" of human systems is so intelligent, why do tragic inefficiencies such as the following occur at all? Warning, the linked photos are graphic medical images, and are very, very sad.

Conjoined twins, i.e., monozygous twinning in which there is fusion of the twins. The popular term is "Siamese" twins. This happens when identical twin embryos become fused together during the very early stages of development. Conjoined twins occur in an estimated one in 200,000 births, with approximately half being stillborn. Here are links to three photos of severely conjoined twins:

Photo 1: one head, two bodies

Photo 2: essentially one torso between two babies

Photo 3: profound fusion

Neural tube defects are are one of the more common congenital anomalies. Such defects result from improper embryonic neural tube closure. The most minimal defect is called spina bifida, with failure of the vertebral body to completely form, but the defect is not open. Open neural tube defects with lack of a skin covering, can include a meningocele, in which meninges protrude through the defect. Here is a link to a severe neural tube defect.

Photo 4

Defects of the head/brain: In the linked photo a large encephalocele that merges with the scalp above is protruding from the back of the head. The encephalocele extends down to partially cover a rachischisis on the back. This baby also has a retroflexed head from iniencephaly.

Photo 5

The form of neural tube defect in the next linked photo is known as exencephaly. The cranial vault is not completely present, but a brain is present because it was not completely exposed to amniotic fluid. Such an event is very rare. It may be part of craniofacial clefts associated with the limb-body wall complex, which results from early amnion disruption.

Photo 6

Congenital and pediatric neoplasms: One type that can occur is a teratoma. The next linked photo shows a large nasopharyngeal teratoma that is protruding from the oral cavity.

Photo 7

Tumors: In the next linked photo there is a large mass involving the left upper arm and left chest of the baby. This congenital neoplasm turned out to be a lymphangioma. This baby and the one in Photo 9 were essentially riddled with cancer before birth and shortly afterwards.

Photo 8

Next is a gross neuroblastoma arising in the right adrenal gland. It is the most common pediatric malignancy in infancy, and 75% of cases are diagnosed in children less than 4 years old. These tumors most often present as an abdominal or mediastinal mass.

Photo 9

[Wolfstar]

Your flaw is in assuming that the designer desires every specimen to be perfect.

No, my flaw, such as there might be, is in not making it clear that I was interested in the scientific basis for ID, not the religious basis.

[Liberty Wins]

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuous improvements being made by slight, successive modifications of the original "simple" system, as suggested by Darwin), because any missing part would by definition make it nonfunctional and unable to reproduce itself.

In "Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Michael J. Behe said "An irreducible complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."

Think of the first horseless carriage as an irreducibly complex system. All of the components of that car are necessary to make it function. Can't take away the wheels, the motor, the chassis, etc. or it wouldn't function as a car. So how did "natural selection" get from the previous, non-functioning version of the car to the complete version?

[Tribune7]

Such cases are not just tragic, but extremely cruel.

If God did not exist, you would not think them cruel.

[Wolfstar]

I only note that you are not in receive mode on this or any other thread I have seen you post on.

"Not in receive mode." Hmmm...let's try it this way. Can you -- would you -- calmly and rationally explain intelligent design to me from a scientific, not religious point of view? I am quite open to such an explanation.

[Wolfstar]

I also suggest you read Behe's sworn testimony under oath in the Dover DASD trial that ended just last week.

Thank you, ml1954. I will definitely read Behe's testimony.

[KDD]

Whether or not I personally may agree with it, case law in this country is quite clear about keeping religion out of the public classroom.

Agree...and I believe as most people do that this is a subject for Sunday School, not Science class in High School.

'Philosophy' and 'Ethics' classes could also encompass IE theory...Private schools ect...

[Wolfstar]

Oh I thought your whole post and the question you posed at the beginning was an argument. My bad.

No problem. It's all too easy to misunderstand each other in the flat, one-dimensional world of internet postings. I guess, bottom line, is that I'm saying the same thing you are, which is that evolution has a lot to back it up. I was hoping that someone who believes in ID would make an effort to explain it in terms other than religious belief.

[cornelis]

Not in receive mode." Hmmm...let's try it this way. Can you -- would you -- calmly and rationally explain intelligent design to me from a scientific, not religious point of view? I am quite open to such an explanation.

If you are really interested, you should take up the question with Alamo-Girl, who is an exceptionally knowledgeable Freeper on the issue concerning complexity, information theory, etc.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Thanks for the link to the transcripts. I have not followed this trial at all.

From Behe testimony,
"Q. Do you think that schools should teach the theory of evolution?
A. Yes, I certainly do.
Q. And why is that?
A. Well, the theory of evolution is widely used in science. It is, in many aspects, well substantiated. It's used by working scientists and any well-educated student should understand it.
Q. By advocating intelligent design, is it your goal to not have the theory of evolution taught in the biology class?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. Has that ever been your goal?
A. Never, no. "

That crazy Behe...

[lonestar67]

I am still confused. I answered the question by explaining what the underpinnings were. Are you wanting know more about what science or the scientific method is? These are the underpinnings of intelligent design.

I do not see what you think I am evading.

[ml1954]

I like the way folks bring up Pascal's wager in so many creative ways, then try to weasel out of it.

They think they've got themselves covered and we don't and we're stupid for not making the obvious 'safe' bet. And they can't resist saying, 'I'm saved and your not, nyahh, nyahh, nayyh'.

[Wolfstar]

So how did "natural selection" get from the previous, non-functioning version of the car to the complete version?

That, of course, is one of the most profound questions human beings have about our world. How did life begin? If intelligent design were being put forward as an answer to that question, I might embrace it much more easily. However, ID is not being put forward to answer that question, but rather as an alternative theory to evolution.

Because I'm not a member of a Protestant demonination, I don't take every word in the Bible literally, but figuratively. Evolution is not incompatible with my religious beliefs.

Putting religion aside and looking solely at the scientific point of view, even in historical times over the last 5000-6000 years, humanity has evolved from primitive to modern civilization. Now a relatively new theory called intelligent design has been developed to challenge evolution. I would like to understand it. Only then could I determine whether or not I agree with the ID theory.

[Wolfstar]

I wrote: "Such cases are not just tragic, but extremely cruel."

You responded: "If God did not exist, you would not think them cruel."

I'm not sure which way you mean that, because it has more than one implication. So let me put it this way: As long as I was able to think and experience compassion, then I would view such cases as tragic and cruel, whether or not I believed in God.

[lonestar67]

Darwin believed in intelligent design. He thought his theory was a component of it.

What is absolutely bizarre is the secularists who think they have cleverly hijacked the theory into some sort of secular sanctuary.

I think a number or reasonable explanations have been offered in this thread but you seem to be waiting for the 'hidden' religion agenda. Once you deem it religious, you indicate vindication. Science and religion are not distinct.

[labette]

If you really, REALLY want to know,
Why not ask the Intelligent Designer?

[ml1954]

Did you read the part about how Behe conceded that for ID to be defined as science the definition of science must be changed. And where he conceded that the change in the definition of science would make astrology a science.

Or how about the part where he accepts common descent and random mutation as the primary mechanisms of evolution, only saying that in rare cases he thinks they are inadequate explanations. And going from the-rem concedes there is no evidence for intervention of the Intelligent Designer in the last 100 million years and so concedes the Intelligent Designer may be dead and that this would be a good thing to teach to 9th grade high school students.

How about the part where he concedes his examples of IC are invalid and so we must now rely on the purposeful arrangement of parts as evidence of ID instead of IC.

There's more. Behe made a fool of himself under oath.

[Wolfstar]

If you are really interested, you should take up the question with Alamo-Girl...

Thank you, cornelis. Alamo-Girl is a long-time FReeper, as am I. But she and I must have different interests since I seldom see her on threads where I post. However, I will consider sending her a private message.

[Tribune7]

"If God did not exist, you would not think them cruel." . . .I'm not sure which way you mean that, because it has more than one implication.

Not really.

As long as I was able to think and experience compassion,

Why should you "experience compassion"?

[Sloth]

No, my flaw, such as there might be, is in not making it clear that I was interested in the scientific basis for ID, not the religious basis.

OK, but that's not what you asked. You spoke of how "cruel" birth defects are, and wanted to know how they could be reconciled to ID. Since ID makes no claims that organisms are perfect, nor any claims about the benevolence or malice of the designer, there is nothing to "reconcile."

[Texas_Jarhead]

I'm only on page 86 of the transcript presently.

---

"They think they've got themselves covered and we don't and we're stupid for not making the obvious 'safe' bet. And they can't resist saying, 'I'm saved and your not, nyahh, nyahh, nayyh'."

I've followed this entire thread and I was wondering if you could direct me to the comments that you interpret as saying, "'I'm saved and your not, nyahh, nyahh, nayyh'."