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

[P-Marlowe]

Has the point gotten through yet?

Yes it has. You are a jerk.

[Right Wing Professor]

Why does Peter Singer still have a job at a prestigious university? Tenure? Why did he get the job in the first place? Has anybody in the scientific community attempted to marginalize him as they do Behe or Dembski or Sternberg? RWP, would you be willing to do that?

Singer is one of the leading utilitarian philosophers. As such, it is unsurprising he found employment at a good university. I am not a utilitarian, and in fact think Singer has done us all a service by unraveling some logical consequences of utilitarianism that, IMHO, are a reductio ad absurdam of the whole system. It's been pointed out that Singer spends a considerable amount of money keeping his ailing mother alive, something that no one here, presumably, would object to, but something that belies his entire philosophy. You can save far more lives and create far more happiness by spending $50,000 on treating disease in the third world, than by keeping one person alive in America. So ti appears he himself does not live by what he preaches.

Singer is not a scientist, and it would not be in our power to 'marginalize' him. But I disagree, in any case, that Behe has been marginalized by anyone other than himself. If you give up real research and write pseudoscience books instead , you take yourself outside the scientific community. Behe hasn't written an experimental paper in ten years. Dembski was never a scientist and appears to know very little science - we saw that this week, when he wrote approvingly of the 'Blacklight' energy scheme for extracting energy from the ground state of hydrogen. Sternberg abused his position as a journal editor, and was fired for it; as far as I know he still has a job at NCBI.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Why does Peter Singer still have a job at a prestigious university? Tenure? Why did he get the job in the first place? Has anybody in the scientific community attempted to marginalize him as they do Behe or Dembski or Sternberg?

It is troubling to consider the positions which are acceptable to hold at the university level (and among professional associations) v. those which are not acceptable.

For examples, the following are acceptable subjects along with pornography, etc. - but intelligent design is not. How strange...

Pedophilia

Legal Rights for Animals

Euthanasia and infanticide

[Right Wing Professor]

You are a jerk.

I'm truly devastated.

[Tribune7]

Singer is one of the leading utilitarian philosophers. As such, it is unsurprising he found employment at a good university.

It should be mouth-droppingly shocking that anyone who advocates the acceptibility of infanticide have employment at a good university. It should be even more so that the rest of academia would find itself unable to condemn the university for its decision to hire him.

[Right Wing Professor]

For examples, the following are acceptable subjects along with pornography, etc. - but intelligent design is not.

This is false. No one has said discussion of ID is not acceptable in a university or school. Behe, Minnich and Gonzalez have not been inhibited from studying, writing or speaking on it. The objection has been to presenting it as scientific or teaching it under the rubric of biology.

[Right Wing Professor]

It should be mouth-droppingly shocking that anyone who advocates the acceptibility of infanticide have employment at a good university.

You seem to have universities confused with day-care centers. Singer's views on infanticide are, IMHO, a logical consequence of utilitarianism, a major field of ethical thought. IMHO they illustrate a major weakness of the ethical calculus of utilitarianism, but we don't persecute people for following what we employed them to do to its logical conclusion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Your ethics are based entirely on the presupposition of an entity I consider fictitious. I can therefore dismiss out of hand any ethical 'line' you might have.

That is the point with gives rise to equal rights for animals and its offspring - academic (and potentially political and legal) acceptance of infanticide, euthanasia, pedophilia, etc.

Lurkers: here is a link to betty boop's last essay-post on second realities.

[Right Wing Professor]

Begin example of syllogism

Atheists kill puppies

X is an atheist

X kills puppies.

End of example of syllogism.

[Right Wing Professor]

Lovely. You represent as my position, something I clearly intended as an example of flawed logic.

Serves me right for arguing with you, I suppose.

Reserving the right to correct misrepresentation of science on your part, I won't be replying again, and I expect you to reciprocate.

I have a deck to stain. See y'all.

[Tribune7]

You seem to have universities confused with day-care centers.

Why should utilitarianism be acceptible at universities?

IMHO they illustrate a major weakness of the ethical calculus of utilitarianism,

That is your opinion, not necessarily Princeton's (or Pinker's or Dawkin's).

but we don't persecute people for following what we employed them to do to its logical conclusion.

Princeton hired Singer to argue the acceptibility of infanticide???? If so, perhaps the cancer in academia requires major surgery.

[Alamo-Girl]

That is an example of a syllogism but it is improperly stated and therefore, false - i.e., correlation is not causation.

But, alas, I see you have left the thread. Have fun finishing your deck.

I continue to pray for you and all your loved ones, God's blessings and guidance.

[sully777]

I have a friend that straddles the fence. He calls macro-evolution impossible. He says the world screams a grand design from a grand designer. However, he argues that there is something called micro-evolution in which items you show tell the story of genetic mutations and subtle changes through either sin (imbreeding) or some unknown source that requires evolution (Ie. Sickle cell and African survival).

I'm not sure where the truth lies except to say that evolutionist and fundamentalists agree on one thing--their side is dogmatic and correct.

[P-Marlowe]

That is the point with gives rise to equal rights for animals and its offspring - academic (and potentially political and legal) acceptance of infanticide, euthanasia, pedophilia, etc.

You are exactly right, AG. If we are not a product of creation and are merely masses of undifferntiated molecules, then we have no moral compass other than our own subjective thoughts which are themselves a product of the same random arrangement of molecules that resulted in the morality of cats and rocks and rattlesnakes.

If there is no higher moral authority than ourselves then we are our own Gods and there is no objective morality.

In that sense RWP can dismiss anyone else's "ethical line" out of hand because it does not comport with his own. In that sense, nothing is ethically wrong in RWP's mind as long as RWP can justify it in his own mind. Who are we to judge him? After all, he is nothing more than a collection of undifferentiated and randomly arranged molecules, the same as a cat or a rattlesnake or a rock. He is no more morally responsible for his own actions, than a big rock would be morally responsible for rolling down a hill and taking out a bus full of children.

[betty boop]

In that sense RWP can dismiss anyone else's "ethical line" out of hand because it does not comport with his own. In that sense, nothing is ethically wrong in RWP's mind as long as RWP can justify it in his own mind. Who are we to judge him? After all, he is nothing more than a collection of undifferentiated and randomly arranged molecules, the same as a cat or a rattlesnake or a rock. He is no more morally responsible for his own actions, than a big rock would be morally responsible for rolling down a hill and taking out a bus full of children.

I don't see how a society could cohere and survive if this line of reasoning were to become "socially acceptable." (And yet, it seems it has....)

Thank you so much for your excellent post, P-Marlowe.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for your excellent posts!

I suspect, as betty boop suggests, that this line of thinking has become acceptable these days – perhaps even the touchstone for a tolerant, enlightened, modern, secular form of governance (especially on the European model). How sad that morality is reduced to a vote in the Legislature or Supreme Court.

If we are not a product of creation and are merely masses of undifferntiated molecules, then we have no moral compass other than our own subjective thoughts which are themselves a product of the same random arrangement of molecules that resulted in the morality of cats and rocks and rattlesnakes.

It saddens me all the more that so many people really haven’t thought this through. We cannot say that what we think is random is actually random in the system when do not even yet know what the “system” is.

For instance, one could extract a series of numbers out of the extension of pi and think they are random – when they are not random at all, but highly determined by the calculation itself.

Thus, randomness is only “apparent” – and yet for many, this is their article of faith (or rejection of faith).

[Tribune7]

However, he argues that there is something called micro-evolution

That micro-evolution occurs is without dispute.

[metmom]

I don't see how a society could cohere and survive if this line of reasoning were to become "socially acceptable." (And yet, it seems it has....)

You're right and that is why we are watching the deterioratinon of our society.

[xzins]

There is nothing socio-pathic about my contention that there is no real morality for those who reject the notion of God. That is a position recognized by many atheists as well as theologican Hans Kung and others.

The best you can hope for is your personal view. Then you will die and your personal view won't be worth pi_s against a wall. It'll die with you, and even if it doesn't, that won't matter either because everyone's destined for the dust heap of history.

And that'll be that.

So, you might as well be Pol Pot as anyone else. It's all just personal opinion, anyway.

[js1138]

The best you can hope for is your personal view.

The Bible says there's no pununishment for beating a slave to death. What do you think?