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.
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.
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.
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.