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

[ml1954]

The underpinnings of intelligent design are science.

What are ID's 'underpinnings'?

[Wolfstar]

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.

I think the answer to your question about exclusion is to be found in being able to explain rationally the scientific basis for the theory. I think people such as the person you reference should be able to do so, and THAT is the information I was hoping to see on this thread.

[Sloth]

If the "design" of human systems is so intelligent, why do tragic inefficiencies such as the following occur at all?

This is a rather lame variation on the old "how could a loving God allow such suffering" thing. Your flaw is in assuming that the designer desires every specimen to be perfect.

[lonestar67]

uhhh?

The underpinnings of ID are science (do you prefer scientific?).

[TN4Liberty]

I didn't call you a liar. That is your choice of words. I only note that you are not in receive mode on this or any other thread I have seen you post on. The intent is clearly to start an argument and not so you can be enlightened. If pointing that out makes you feel like a liar, that is your issue, not mine. Even your choice of the word "liar" is to provoke a hostile situation, not to persuade anyone of anything, nor to be persuaded. Time and your behavior will tell if I am right. So far I am looking pretty good.

[ml1954]

I also suggest you read Behe's sworn testimony under oath in the Dover DASD trial that ended just last week. Transcripts can be found here http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/

[trashcanbred]

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

I think the question is, is there any real proof of ID? Well... I guess the argument is we are here so that is proof enough but that doesn't quite cut it with me.

Evolution has a lot to back it up. We have actually seen species adapt to a changed environment before. Not just viruses and microorganisms but macro-organisms as well. If there are really good arguments to say evolution is wrong I am all for hearing them. So far I have not heard any that knock evolution out.

[Liberty Wins]

The theory of evolution has had a monopoly for too long and its proponents have gotten lazy and arrogant (just like the MSM). I think a little competition would benefit everybody. If you google "intelligent design" you will find plenty of information on the scientific evidence, as well as the growing number of scientists who are either promoting it or backing further research on it.

Intelligent Design Network

This website says they promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design, not religious theories.

[Sloth]

What I asked was how birth defects reconcile with ID.

The cupholders in my Grand Am are situated such that any drinks placed in them block access to the heat & air controls. Reconcile this defect with the claim that automobiles are intelligently designed.

[highlander_UW]

I knew this would be a tough subject to bring up.

It's not an easy topic to bring up (judging from the various types of posts)...although I believe the direction of this thread was predicated upon the format of the initial question...but that's, of course, already done.

These are profound questions. I have an inquiring mind.

I can offer you my opinion, however I need to first state that I am not much involved in the ID theory stuff. I had a personal experience with God and therefore I have no doubt to His existence...so I know He is the creator and never really worried too much how He went about it (but still, I do read a range of materials).

It is interesting how this thread jumps between a ID design question and a theological question. They aren't precisely the same. I believe that an ID advocate would respond something along the lines that someone already has in this thread...that is that a design can be correct and yet something can go wrong with any given instance of that item. They used the example of a car that was designed correctly, but one might be a lemon or may just experience failure along it's lifespan. Interestingly, when people have offered responses strictly from the ID issue leaving out any specific concept of God someone comes along and shifts it to the competence or intelligence of that designer. That sort of comment is founded in a number of assumptions such as that the designer intended a perfect design, that the designer would make sure (through intervention is necessary) to eliminate any variance from a presumably perfect design, that quality of life and value of life are intertwined with physical condition...in essence, those arguing against ID are making it an issue of theology...why would God allow X to happen.

Personally, I'm much more comfortable discussing in the theological realm and could address that angle. But if one wishes to discuss it exclusive of any particular concept of God then why do the anti-ID'ers assume the designer is perfect? or has good intentions...that shifts from the topic of ID to one of meanings and intentions.

When one backs the creation/evolution question to the point of origin it really comes down to choosing one of two eternals...one is eternal matter that behaves without cause or a creator who is eternal (with a nature that we can have very little comprehension of given our finite nature and the infinite required for such an eternal creator). But I realize that is not the focus of your question...although, ultimately, I think the question always begs that creation question.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Actually no, I didn't [pose a religious question]. What I asked was how birth defects reconcile with ID.

It is a rare individual indeed who would separate the so called "religious" elements from ID. If you want the question answered from a strictly scientific standpoint, then "reconciliation" is a bad word, because it carries the baggage of intent, purpose, and all that leads to theology and philosophy.

[ml1954]

You: The underpinnings of intelligent design are science.

Me; What are ID's 'underpinnings'

You: uhhh? The underpinnings of ID are science (do you prefer scientific?).

This is usually called an evasive response.

[trashcanbred]

What is easy for me to say?

Birth defects are not by design, they are defects in the building process. Anything a human can design can be built improperly. A complex computer can have a hardware "glitch" in the manufacturing. A single car out of many can have been built wrong though the design is sound.

I have never heard a genetic specialist say that birth defects were from "bad design". It almost always happened because of some external environmental issue or because there were certain recessive genetic traits that ended up showing up.

Given how complex human life forms are it is amazing it doesn't happen more often...

[ml1954]

I'm always amused by people who substitute implied threats for argument.

Please increment your 'I've been condemned again' counter by one.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The matter of intelligent design is so self-evident to me as to make it preposterous that one might indulge science under the illlusion reality is an agglomeration of chanceful forces.

Science cannot take place without intelligent design. It is hardly a stretch to deduce that intelligent design has a place in bringing science itself into existence.

Why would the given of intelligent design entertain the improbable and philosophical notion of some unguided cause? It must have something to do with money.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I hardly think
it's a matter of inc
rements.

[js1138]

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

[js1138]

Are you implying that anyone thinks GM cars are intelligently designed?

[KDD]

Reality in general cannot be reconciled with intelligent design.

It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein

[Wolfstar]

ID, like your post, is intrinsic to discussions of theology.

The only problem with ID being intrinsic to discussion of theology is this: People are pushing for ID to be taught in the public schools either alongside evolution or as a replacement for it. 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.