Posted on 11/11/2005 4:47:36 PM PST by 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 2: essentially one torso between two babies
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for the advice. I think it works this way. I also think this is an important debate to have.
Reality in general cannot be reconciled with intelligent design.
I doubt these images, as horrible as they are, really shake anyone's beliefs in God or Intelligent Design. These cases you show are exceptions, not the rule.
All I can say is that if this is the best you can do it is pretty sad.
I agree, but am interested in philosophical underpinnings of those who believe in intelligent design.
These clear examples of the effect of sin and corruption of the original design resulting from man's rebellion against God (Genesis 3)
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." - 1 Cor 13:12
Wrong!
Your arguments are exactly why intelligent design is a must.
Your "science" supposes that these lives are worthless. You provide photos so that the aesthetics can govern our rationality. These are not humans-- but monsters. Therefore, we should allow our human discernment to kill them prior to birth and more importantly fully engage the "moral" task of sorting the strong from the weak.
No aspect of physical deformity or defect can demean the metaphysical commitments of valuing human life. The intellectual war against intelligent design is a war to rationalize human life. Showing us shocking pictures of deformed humanity will not do it.
You are not god nor are any of your rational censorship loving pals. We are endowed by our creator-- even if you don't like our looks.
Not interested in an argument, but a discussion. It's unfortunate that you consider an attempt to explore the question "dumb." In any case, for the "dumb" among us, would you care to expand on your analogy?
I think everything in life is capable of shaking your faith of God's existance. But in a way, that's the point. You have to find God of your own accord, especially in the difficult times.
Loving God and having faith doesn't mean that life is perfect, no matter what the Oprah-Televangelists tell you.. The early martyrs of the Church are a perfectly good example of that.
From mankind's perspective, these things are bad. So are hungry wolves and bears if you're in the woods with them. God's ways are not our ways. We will never understand everything He allows.
The issues not that they are exceptions, but that they exist at all. Mild genetic (birth) defects such as near-sightedness are extremely common. If we are meant to see, why are so many of us born with the defect?
We need teeth to eat, and yet our teeth are poorly designed and rot easily. Why?
ID assumes purpose. It might be that a perfect specimen exists nowhere, ever, nor would the existence of a perfect specimen be part of the purpose. Not one perfect specimen of anything. If there is a perfection, there can be only one.
Archival ping (marginal).
It's difficult to tell from words alone how to take such a statement. If you mean the statement to be taken literally, then I would say that's an awfully cruel god you believe in.
I think that the design is wonderful-I also think the design can be corrupted by external forces,such as chemicals in the food chain,background radiation,and who knows what else.All this has no effect on my faith.
Well, "Intelligent Design" is nonsense, but your illustration above is just another variation on the 'Problem of Evil' (i.e., how can God be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and yet permit evil to exist). The short answer is that if an all-powerful, all-knowing God exists then he isn't all-good by our standards.
Allright. Now we have the stated reason for the thread.
Do you really believe God hates you as much as you hate him?
That is a beautiful quote from scripture. I agree that there are many mysteries which we mere mortals may never know the answer until we meet our God.
But I hope to explore the question of Intelligent Design vs. the many defects we see in this world.
How so? Perhaps an eternity of bliss in the afterlife awaits the afflicted.
We would all have to be very smart (smarter than any human) to know why these diseases exist.
Maybe it has something to do with the flesh being less important and the soul being more important?
Yes, the soul suffers the pain of the body. But when that connection is gone, so is the pain.
PS. And the corollary to that is that if an all-powerful, all-knowing God exists then nothing is evil in his view, since nothing can exist other than what He wants to exist. Another corollary is the absence of free will - i.e., predestination.
I am sure with a tiny bit of effort you can find someone around here to go through a bunch of rhetorical acrobatics trying to explain the "Problem of Evil" some other way..
A myopic argument......by this same philosophy, I would assume that evolutionary principles also would not apply to such genetic abnormality. Is not the purpose of evolution for a species to continue in an upward development? As a species developed would not it conquer such aberration?
I tend to think that such difficulties would actually draw individuals closer to a higher power. This utter helplessness only makes one search for strength in something greater.
You cite one terrible aspect of life and use it to discredit religion.
Why not point to your own head and use it to credit religion?
As I said above, things that are designed intelligently are efficient. It is terribly inefficient and cruel to start a baby on its way to life only to have no chance for life. Makes no sense from a purely efficient design point of view.
PPS. Oh, and the answer to your original question would be: Yes, they can be reconciled if the "intelligent designer" is either incompetent or malevolent.
Not 'many'. Nothing but defects. Not the way we would design it. Is it?
First, to me this is not a question of religious faith, but of intelligent design as a scientific argument. There is no attempt at ridicule whatsoever. Quite the opposite. I am open to being won over to the intelligent design argument if it can be reconciled with the fact that birth defects and other defects exist.
Wolfstar: Not interested in an argument, but a discussion. It's unfortunate that you consider an attempt to explore the question "dumb."
Your response reflects your dishonesty. Texas Transplant did not say the topic was dumb, or to discuss it was dumb...they said the way you attempted to start the topic was dumb...and I believe they are correct in their assumption that your intent was not discussion but argument...but don't let me get in the way of your crusade against anyone that sees value in human life...even when the bodies are imperfect.
BTW, try talking to some parents of children with Downs syndrome and tell them that their children aren't valuable...see if they agree with you.
Does Intelligent Design theory demand that every creation be perfect? Certainly, an impersonal IDesigner would be permitted a plus or minus!
If the Designer is the God of the Bible, the tragedy in this world is due to the fall.
I am going to throw my $.02 worth in on this. First of all my son has Down Syndrome. I can reconcile this debate. My son is a Blessing & a gift from the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY! He teaches me everyday about uncondtional love. No matter how bad my day has been to hear Lance go "Hi Dadda" makes all better. I firmly believe that he is an Angel sent to earth to teach about love.
Nuff Said
Sorry, but you presume to know the mind of the designer and judge the designer by standards of your own invention. There is no debate.
All the ID advocates are willing to swear under oath in court that intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, and that the designer is not God.
The designer is a psychopathic space alien.
I think this argument is like blaming DaVinci for every bad print that is made of the Mona Lisa.
Agreed, but what does that have to do with the concept of intelligent design?
You see, intelligent design is being put forward as an alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution. So I am trying to explore this question more in a scientific or philosophical sense than in a religious sense.
Evolution as a concept is nearly useless in physics. In fact, physicists assume that things are holding constant to a degree, and if that is a symptom of design so be it.
Might be, what what about efficient? Isn't a design which is intelligent also efficient?
Evolution has no direction.
Why do species go extinct? How does that jive with evolution?
Yes, that's true, but why?
From the Darwinian p.o.v.: Fitness doesn't mean the unfit should survive. Nature absolves its own inefficiencies.
From the logical / existential p.o.v.: Evidence of an opposite is not proof that one or the other doesn't or can't exist. It does not follow that evidence of hot water means there is no cold water, or that evidence of death means there is no life.
From the ancient p.o.v. there are two principles that are fundamental (they still hold this view that chaos and complexity are complementary universal principles
From the monotheistic p.o.v. evil is not a divine principle; evidence of evil points to other causes. There is also a distinction between moral and nature evil.
And finally, no matter which is preferred, evil still there exists. To be human, we are designed to struggle against it.
This shakes your faith in religion.
I'm not sure it has anything to say about ID other than that, like a car running down with age, natural processes have an impact on design.
Why does it shake your faith?
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?
Also like saying Picasso's cubist period can't be art if Grant Wood's American Gothic is?
I often start my arguments backwards to draw attention to flawed assumptions. Assumptions are the predicates of arguments. So by starting backwards, I was hoping to draw your attention to this assumption-- not to be unfair to you.
In any case, the deformities of children are based upon human preconceptions of what is "normal" and appropriate.
This reminds me of a debate I had with an atheist who said, "How can you believe in Christianity when its evidence comes principally from a prostitute?"
The nature of the evidence may be very much the point. Our rationality has problems. Our sense of "normalcy" has problems. God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. I strongly believe this is a transcendent purpose within the intelligent design. This means that deformities (as we see them) are part of that ironic process whereby we recognize our limits of judgment.
We would do well to withhold our judgments against any human being-- no matter the degree of discrepancy with out own expectations.
I also suspect that the grisly mutilation of Christ in the crucifixion process was very much a reminder of our shallow habits of judgment and a deep reminder of what makes a being human.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
