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]

It's an inside joke you wouldn't understand.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

Or else a charlatan who uses a familiarity with jargon to fake understanding of science and math.

One or the other, certainly.

[Right Wing Professor]

Everybody is inclined to bear false witness under oath in order to save their image and hide. Let's just say it comes naturally.

No. I have no such inclination. Being wrong is an inevitability if one attempts anything worthwhile in life. It happens, and one learns, admits it, and moves on. Why would one lie about it, let alone under oath?

[Texas_Jarhead]

"It's an inside joke you wouldn't understand."

On the contrary, I think I do get it.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"In E. Coli and S. typhimurium, flagella turning at speeds of 18,000 rpm push cells at 30 microns per second, but the speed records are set by motors in other bacteria that turn at rates exceeding 100,000 rpm and push cells at hundreds of micrometers per second. What is all the more remarkable is that flagellar motors can run in both directions, that is clockwise and counterclockwise. These motors also deliver a constant torque of 4500 piconewton nanometers at speeds over 6000 rpm."

Maan, how small is that dynamometer?

[Right Wing Professor]

Maan, how small is that dynamometer?

Maaan, what does any of this prove? Awesome, dude, that so righteously kewl, it must mean there is a God. Pass over the doobie, maaan,

[secretagent]

Do you believe in the theory of intelligent design? If so, then perhaps you might turn your own question around and share how the theory reconciles inefficiencies such as the list of birth defects provided above.

I don't believe or disbelieve. I find both a designed cosmos and a designer-less cosmos hard to comprehend.

As to reconciling a designer with birth defects, perhaps the designer had cruel intent. Intelligence doesn' t equal kindness here on earth. Perhaps the same with the designer.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

Wolfstar: Such cases are not just tragic, but extremely cruel. They not only argue against "intelligent design," but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion.

xzins: Why does it shake your faith?

It certainly doesn't shake my faith. Furthermore, there is no relationship between religious faith and the intelligent design hypothesis.

The intelligent design hypothesis has no doctrine, no articles of faith, no Holy writ.

Nor does it specify the "intelligent cause" - which could be either a phenomenon or an agent. Phenomena include intelligence as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity and fractal intelligence. Agents could be God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.

Nor does it address "all features" of the universe and life. Nor is it a theory of origins.

The hypothesis says that "certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."

Some people label intelligent design supporters as theists. And some people label supporters of the theory of evolution as atheists.

But neither is a valid because correlation is not causation.

For instance, that a bunch of storks appear at the same time a bunch of babies are born does not establish a cause/effect relationship between the two.

[xzins]

I'm sorry. I thought you meant it personally, that it had shaken your faith.

If we were speaking theologically, then we could talk about the many difficulties that life brings. They all issue, ultimately, from a fallen universe.

[xzins]

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. Or else a charlatan who uses a familiarity with jargon to fake understanding of science and math. One or the other, certainly.

It is considered polite to ping someone when they are mentioned -- especially in a potentially negative light. I have pinged Alamo-Girl, and it is true that she is very knowledgeable regarding the ID discussion. So is Betty Boop.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"Maaan, what does any of this prove? Awesome, dude, that so righteously kewl, it must mean there is a God. Pass over the doobie, maaan,"

Thanks for the snide remark. I simply posted something I found interesting from the transcript and tried to make a joke. Guess there's no room for that with you professor. But thanks for the attempt to belittle me. That speaks volumes about you.

[xzins]

Absolutely true, AG.

ID makes no statement about "who" or "what" the designer is. The best one can say about the designer is that it is an organizing principle which could be phenomenological or personal. Perhaps it is no longer even in existence.

[Tribune7]

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.

I read most of the cross examiniation & couldn't find it. Behe seems to have done fairly well.

[Liberty Wins]

It may be too soon for intelligent design to be accepted in biology class. But it is gathering momentum and adherents, both in the public and among scientists. A 2001 Gallup poll showed that 82% of those polled believed that the generation of life was "God-directed," whereas only 12% believed in the evolution of human beings without God.

[Texas_Jarhead]

PS - In case it's unclear, even though I never mentioned it, my post had nothing to do with God, ID, evolution, creationism, or theology of any kind. Simply the measurement of physical forces involved with flagella.

[xzins]

Does the existence of birth defects prove that any potential designer wasn't very intelligent? Good question. Does the existence of death do the same thing?

Excellent point, TB.

[Liberty Wins]

My daughter is taking a number of science courses on her way to becoming a nurse, and she reports her instructors are continually frustrated because everytime they bring up the subject of evolution, the students snicker.

[jwalsh07]

This is just another silly argument from those who either don't understand God or don't want to.

Because Wolfstar recoils from the images he links to, he thinks God does the same. But God doesn't care if I have brown hair, blue eyes or 10 eyes.

According to the scientists, we live in a universe that is over 15 billion years old but from a Christian perspective that 15 billion years is but one of those 10 eyes blinking. God is eternal and God's kingdom is open to all, those with two, four or no legs alike.

Our short time on Earth is but a weigh station and God doesn't judge us by our weight. God knew us before we were in the womb and God will judge our souls not our botox injections.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Actually no, I didn't.

Oh yes you did.

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

If the cases shown in the above-linked photos are examples of "intelligent design," then the question has to be asked: To what purpose?

Such cases are not just tragic, but extremely cruel. They not only argue against "intelligent design," but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion.

Purpose IS a religious/philosophical question.
Tragic IS a religious/philosophical/moral statement.
Extremely cruel IS a religious/philosophical/moral statement.

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.

No clearly you are not. You ask religious/philosophical questions and make religious/philosophical/moral statements, and then demand a non-religious/non-philosophical rebuttal. You can't even debate on the ground you started the debate on.

[xzins]

God will judge our souls not our botox injections.

That should make many celebrities breath a sigh of relief. (Although, I'm not sure a sigh is any more possible than a smile once one's had her botox injection. :>)

Good points.

The fatal flaw posed by the title of this thread is that the Intelligent Designer is something like the Christian God.

That really is not a premise of intelligent design.