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

[hosepipe]

[ Why don't you just ping heartwood and ask her whether she or her parents or grandparents engaged in "long term inbreeding and incest... or chronic drug abuse including alcohol"? ]

[ You ignored my question ]

You mean this question?...

Although it seems to be a question from a Moonbat I gave you the benefit of the doubt..
What would that accomplish?..

Suggestion: I think your Compassion'ator is broke.. suggest recalibration.. What is, is, and What ain't, ain't.. Make a note..

[trashcanbred]

Oddly enough... I am not a proponent of ID... but your argument against it is in my opinion weak. Birth defects happen for a number of known and unknown reasons. Sometimes it is just bad luck. My car was created via intelligent design yet... some of the ones built have defects in the manufacturing. It wasn't the designer's fault, it was poor manufacturing (maybe because it was simply a Monday morning...).Point is this doesn't really provide a good argument.

As for teeth and why do they rot... why do they fail at all? Perhaps it is "Planned Obsolescence". I am of course joking... sort of. Our decay and eventual death creates life to exist for others correct? A proponent of ID would argue that death is part of the life cycle that something also designed. In other words, it is all part of the intelligent design.

I think your arguments are not very strong and one could easily use them against you. My suggestion is if you want to fight Intelligent Design... tell the proponents that there are many versions of Intelligent Design and that all of them will be discussed... not just one version. Take the Scientologists and their ideas about "Xenu" and the body Thetans (if you do not know what I am talking about... look it up, basically it is an aliens souls invade our body type of thing).

Another way to fight it is to ask the question,"Is it science?".

I am against the whole idea because this could open up a pandora's box of all sorts of kooks wanting to teach ID about all sorts of things. Plus if I want my children to learn this, I will take them to church. It royally irks me and I don't like it one bit.

[Wolfstar]

The basis of your argument seems to be as such: "Bad things happen, therefore God does not exist."

Thank you for your reply, Leapfrog. You at least attempted to understand the basis for my question -- not argument. Unfortunately, you misunderstood my question. It is not as you put it, but rather, "How do the flaws we see all around us in this world reconcile with the theory of ID on a scientific, not religious basis?"

[lonestar67]

That is fine-- I don't see it as a challenge.

I think deformities could be reasonably seen as a challenge to our senses of order. I am not saying that ID must maintain this as THE interpretation. It does seem that ID has this as a stronger interpretive possibility than secular Darwinism.

I also think that organisms could be too complex for randomness and produce 'errors' at the same time. I do not see the deformities as competitive with an ID viewpoint.

My grudge in this discussion is not whether ID is true but rather why must it be excluded from scientific discussions. Non-religious scientists such as Behe have come to the conclusion that complex organisms cannot be reasonably explained as being byproducts of conventional evolutionary processes. This seems like a fair scientific hypothesis.

Religious bigotry (not necessarily on your part) masquerades as a sincere conern over scientific integrity. If we read TS Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions, it is apparent that theories also evolve-- but classic darwinism seems completely unwilling to suffer through challenges.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

I asked someone else whether or not it is religious dogma or scientific theory. I think after seeing most of the responses on this thread, the former seems to be the answer.

Well that's pretty easy to figure out. You started this thread by posing a religious question. One you aren't prepared to answer concerning evolution. Actually the truth is, the answer to this question is readily supplied by the curriculum in most cases, and is at the entire heart of this controversy. Several states, Kansas and Ohio come to mind, are addressing the problem of athiesm being taught as the official religion of the State in high school classrooms under the guise of "science".

[ml1954]

These clear examples of the effect of sin and corruption of the original design resulting from man's rebellion against God.

So you think God punishes the innocent for the sins of their forebears? Why would God do that?

[Wolfstar]

Wolfstar, you are too intelligent not to believe in a higher Power...

Thank you for the compliment. You know, it's kind of funny in a way, because this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in God. I was raised a Roman Catholic and have always maintained a belief in God. Yet almost everyone has seen my question through a religious prism.

The other day there was an election in Pennsylvania in which a bunch of judges were thrown out of office over ID. There is a hot case in Kansas having to do with teaching ID in the schools.

I wanted to explore ID, not get into a religious war of words.

[js1138]

Suggestion: I think your Compassion'ator is broke..

You are the one claiming birth defects are the result of misbehavior.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"The "grave" is certain, but you imply that I am destined for eternal punishment. Lets not mince words."

I read Fester's comment and saw no implied determination about your "eternal punishment" only the assertion that you, like all things living, will die.

[Wolfstar]

...so I apologize for misjudging your intentions in that regard.

Thank you. I very much appreciate a reasonable person such as yourself. I knew this would be a tough subject to bring up. Even FReemailed the admin mod in advance to ask how best to handle the graphic photos, because I didn't want to exploit them, just provide examples. These are profound questions. I have an inquiring mind.

[js1138]

And what is the relevance of that?

[Fester Chugabrew]

ID, like your post, is intrinsic to discussions of theology. It is my opinion that we are setting up a false dichotomy when we pit religion against science. God is real. The physical universe is real. Deal with it. The two are not sepearate worlds and were not meant to be. Nor is it reasonable to place the two into separate little baggies as if this somehow facilitates education. Of all things, science ought to be open to every manner and means of inquiry. It does not have the privilege of saying, "This might lead to God, therefore it is not scientific."

[Wolfstar]

Let's se, you call one poster for calling people liars, but not another.

Not "people," me. TN4Liberty said I didn't mean what I said about the purpose of this thread. My response was about me to TN4Liberty alone. Probably should have put it in a private message to avoid just such mixups as yours.

[Michael Goldsberry]

How do the flaws we see all around us in this world reconcile with the theory of ID on a scientific, not religious basis?

Here is where I fail to understand the debate. "Intelligent Design" apparently has some meaning other than implied religious foundations.

I look forward to talking with you in the future on how religion and science coincide.

[Wolfstar]

Oddly enough... I am not a proponent of ID... but your argument against it is in my opinion weak.

I have yet to write a single argument against it. I have merely posed questions.

Another way to fight it is to ask the question,"Is it science?".

That's exactly what I have been doing throughout this thread, trying to get at the answer from several points of view.

[NVD]

In my philosophy, ID and my world view go fit together like a hand in a glove. My God is the intelligent designer, as he was for centuries and centuries. And most many of the same naturalists you have quoted in the past, followed the formula above.

Try to wrap your brain around this....
Most evolutionists or naturalistic scientists insist that an intelligent cause has no place in science. But the truth is that several branches of science use the concept of intelligence and have even devised tests for detecting work of an intelligent design. Consider forensic science. When a police finds a body the first question is, Was death the result of natural causes or foul play (an intentional act of an intelligent agent)? Pathologists perform a battery of fairly straightforward tests to get the answer. This same fact can be said for the likes of cryptographers, archaeologists, and astronomers. So are naturalistic scientists and intelligent design related.....a resounding yes is the answer!

[Texas_Jarhead]

"And what is the relevance of that?"

The relevance is simply that you asserted that Fester Chugabrew made an implied threat and I thought I would mention, if I am so still allowed, that that ain't the reality of it as I see it. You accused him/her of making "implied threats", your words, and I'm saying that's bull. That is all. Why so touchy?

[hosepipe]

[ You are the one claiming birth defects are the result of misbehavior. ]

So then, I was right.. pity.. since its a proven fact birth defect can be one result of misbehavior.. Truth is a hard taskmaster to those that hate it..

[Gumlegs]

Easy for you to say.

[Wolfstar]

You started this thread by posing a religious question.

Actually no, I didn't. What I asked was how birth defects reconcile with ID. After posting data and examples at the top of the thread, in my post #1 I added that such tragedies not only argue against "intelligent design," but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion.

The latter is absolutely true. People the world over and throughout time have had their faith shaken by terrible personal tragedies. It is part of the human condition.

If serious ID proponents are capable of calmly and rationally reconciling -- in the example I used -- birth defects with the theory on a non-religious basis, I am most open to the information.