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

[Tempest]

To what purpose? You really should ask Elihu that....

[Conservative til I die]

Kinda sums up a lot of the atheistic arguments against God. "Can't believe in Him because he's too mean."

[Conservative til I die]

Also, I don't get it. Does a deformity or medical condition somehow differentiate such a person from "normal" people as inferior?

[Conservative til I die]

If you're going to imply that God is cruel (and therefore that equates to Him not existing) because of deformity, then why isn't He cruel for creating all humans only to die at some point? See how infantile it gets?

[Tribune7]

Believe it or not good morals are also good biology and evolution. . . I'd be interested in how you back up that statement. . .Ok, I'll start with the two easiest ones: murder and stealing. . .Unlimited murder would destroy the population in no time

Neither the Nazis nor the communist nor the Turks nor a whole lot of groups had a problem with wholesale murder.

And a lot of times it worked. Tribes and peoples have disappeared in history because they lost a war and were killed off.

And the same goes for stealing. Many, many slave traders became quite wealthy.

[Tribune7]

Just as No Real Scottsman puts sugar on his oatmeal ... ? ;>)

Did you know that Anthony Flew cooked that phrase up? :-)

[Hacksaw]

They not only argue against "intelligent design,"

From what I have read on ID, the central theme is irreducible complexity. These birth defects are reducible, so it would not conflict with ID.

but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion.

Sort of like "If there is a God, then why does he allow hurricanes?" Bad things happen. It's a debate that has been going on forever.

[From many - one.]

I expect there'll be more. Look at Africa. And if the Arabs didn't have Israel I suspect they'd be at each others' throats. Also the Inquisition.

How does that square with not-murdering being good biology and evolution?

One word, and it bodes ill: crowding. In each of the cases above there was a perception of crowding:liebenstraum for the Germans, irritable starving peasants during the inquisition, famines in China.

A factor to note is that there was always a group in charge. You still couldn't murder your neighbor, you had to confine yourself to the socially approved murderee group. And the murderees were always defined as not quite real people.

Even Judeo-Christian morality didn't prevent a seemingly crowded Europe from killing off its more helpless population. And by a remarkable coincidence it faded out when a whole new continent showed up to take the pressure off.

Do I like or approve? No, but is is both sound biology and in conformity with Judaeo-Christian practice.

[Tribune7]

How does that square with not-murdering being good biology and evolution?

Because the side that murdered passed on their genes. You can use murder to obtain material satisfaction. You can use murder to successfully reproduce. You can't murder, however, and find spiritual peace. You can't be right with God.

Without God life is Hell. If you want case studies see Soviet Union; Cultural Revolution; Paris Commune etc.

[Gumlegs]

As long as there's no sugar in the recipe.

[Deadshot Drifter]

So far, at least, the responses on this thread seem to indicate it has everything to do with religious belief You'd already know that if you had read the Wedge Document ;-) According to the Discovery Institute, the major proponent of ID in this country, IDs main goal is to make people more open to religious ideas (only certain correct ones, mind you) by wiping out the boogeyman of materialism.

[dhs12345]

It is not religious to state that we mere humans don't know everything there is to know. And probably never will.

As a matter of fact, it is a bit arrogant to think that we do. There will always be things in nature that we will never fully understand. Of course, that doesn't mean don't try.

Accepting that fact is the first step in a fuller understanding of science. People thought they had the universe pegged beginning of last century. Bohrs theory of the atom, etc. The along came new and very strange theories that blew away our concept of reality. Time wasn't constant? Mass could become infinite? Matter is a wave and not a particle? Just by perceiving something, we changed it?

Just a guess, but I bet that science will continue to get stranger and stranger and become less provable -- example string theory.

[Deadshot Drifter]

wow! you really got under some folks skin for pointing out that IDers tend to lie. I guess I'd hate to be reminded of Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham's perjury too.

[metmom]

I'm a creationist so I can't state exactly the position of IDers but this is what I gather their position is from all that I have read. I haven't heard that ID precludes evolution. From what I understand, ID states that everything was created and set in motion and that it does allow for evolution to be the mechanism by which life came into being on this planet. I can believe that in it's original form, it would have been perfect but as someone else pointed out (post #18), outside influences cause deterioration of the original form and just because there was intelligent design doesn't mean that it remains perfect. Mutations occur in cells, erosion occurs in nature, things just tend to deteriorate in general but it doesn't disprove the concept that it was intelligently designed. Serious defects like you showed are no more evidence against ID than the inconvenient ones that we live with, like nearsightedness. I think that everything has defects in it and that it is just a matter of degree. In some respects, this is like creation. The Bible gives the account of creation and the Fall. Everything was created perfect but when the Fall occurred, deterioration set in and it appears that some of the physical laws of the universe were changed. ID and creation are similar. One can believe in ID without believing in the Creation account as given in the Bible; however, creationists are of necessity, IDers. They just claim to know who the creator was and more detail on how he did it.

[metmom]

"I have no practical way of separating actual Christians from hypocrites. In my experience the public profession of faith is not an indicator of trustworthiness."

You're right, a public profession of faith is not an indicator of trustworthiness. It's the life they lead. That is the practical way to determine whether a person is a genuine Christian or a CINO. A persons convictions better have an influence on how they live or they are not genuine. IMO, however, trust has to be earned. I'm a Christain and I have been soundly criticized for not trusting people. "What kind of Christian are you that you don't trust people?" My answer, A realistic one. I firmly believe, however, that I am obligated to be completely trustworthy. But people don't know that so I need to earn their trust.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for for pinging me to your posts! I'm sorry to see this thread has been banished to the Smoky Backroom.

I apologize for posting so late, but we were gone all day today with family. Three great nephews are in the service and all happened to be home at the same time, one is fixing to ship out to Afghanistan. We couldn't miss the opportunity!

And, wouldn't you know, when we got back our small town evidently lost a substation transformer and we were blacked out until just a little while ago. Jeepers

It's too late and I'm too tired to catch up on what's transpired - but I look forward to making some comments tomorrow!

Before I head off to sleep though, Right Wing Professor, you said "I consider it a damn sight more impolite to be told I can have no possible moral objection to pedophilia or infanticide."

I presume you mean that I have asserted that you personally can have no possible moral objection to pedophilia or infanticide. I don't recall accusing you of that or any thing else.

xzins and P-Marlowe, the conversation which evidently gives rise to RWP's complaint begins at post 293 on another thread. Perhaps y'all will see something I do not?

[metmom]

I gave some more thought to your question and will try to elaborate on my first response. If an intelligent designer chose to use evolution as the means by which life arose on earth, then changes in genetic material (mutations) would have to be allowed so that evolution could/would occur. A mutation that is favorable in one environment would not be so in another, so there is no way of knowing whether it would be favorable to the creature or not since it would depend on the circumstances. Therefore mutations would have to be *open* so to speak; IOW to allow for anything to happen. So there would be no way to control the mutation process to prevent the unfavorable ones because there would be no way of knowing if and when a mutation would be favorable or not. At this point, I don't think that the examples you give show lack of ID as much as the necessary result of the the means of chosen; ie. genetic mutation. Those are the unfavorable ones that are weeded out in the process of allowing mutation so that favorable ones can happen and be passed down and change can occur. We tend to think of them as *good* or *bad* because we see suffering result from unfavorable mutations.

[Tribune7]

I checked the link and A-G makes a very good point.

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?

[Right Wing Professor]

Without God, though, your moral objection is simply some local or personal convention that means nothing in the long run.

Why, thank you also for dismissing my ability and those of other non-Christians to make meaningful ethical judgements. I could get down in the mud with you and discuss the substance behind your ethical judgements; but I won't. One of the essentials for a civilized discussion is that we accept the basic humanity of our antagonists, and part of that humanity is that they are capable, like us, of functioning ethical judgments. There is no point in arguing ethics with a sociopath.

[Right Wing Professor]

Expressing a negative opinion of "a post" is perfectly kosher here on Free Republic, but when you accuse one of the posters (Particualry Alamo Girl) of being a "charlatan", you have crossed the line in my book.

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.

Has the point gotten through yet?