Other than backward's reasoning, what reason is there to believe that the advantage of a big baby brain outweighs the risk of the related childbirth? All non-human animals do just fine with relatively small brains. But, childbirth is a significant problem. And, you still haven't explained why Evolution hasn't found a solution for the high-risk birth process, given all the time it has had. Why not tall heads instead of fat heads? Birth canals that open much wider? Shift more brain growth to after birth?
Are you seriously saying that humanity's huge brain hasn't given humanity a significant advantage?
Tall heads would be more unstable for the human neck to support, and they would have to be a lot taller in order to provide the necessary brain volume. Also, there would be the matter of how a tall head fits into a mother's womb.
A birth canal can only open so wide. It is precisely because of bipedalism that the pelvic girdle has to support most of the body's weight and hence be very strong. Lengthen the cartilage in the female pelvic girdle or loosen it, and at some point there won't be enough strength left in it. I think it is also a problem in terms of how far the soft tissue of the vagina can dilate.
As I've said, the fact that a human baby has a relatively (biologically) mature brain at birth maximizes the time it has to receive and process sensory input and learn from it.
But more importantly, why do you expect evolution to have to find a solution to this problem? Is something wrong with evolution if it leaves problems without solutions? Define evolution, anyways.
Is this your way of claiming that without Evolution, we wouldn't know that some diseases are genetically caused??? I didn't find the part that made the case that Evolution was actually helpful to medical science (and, the article doesn't even address childbirth)
Did you read through the whole article? Yes, it doesn't address childbirth, but it raises a whole lot of other contributions. Basically, without evolutionism, population genetics wouldn't exist. All creationists really have to say about population genetics is that "animals reproduce within their kinds". Otherwise, we would start seeing creationists produce genetic data confirming that there was only one (or seven) pair(s) alive in each genus 4,000+ years ago, and that all members in those genera alive today genetically originate from those ancestral pairs.
A creationist, Mendel, discovered those genes, in the fist place. Evolutionists originally resisted the idea of genes because it explained variation in a way that wasn't conducive to Evolution.
Wouldn't Mendel have still experimented with peas and discovered genes if he hadn't actually believed that the earth was 6,000 years old? And do you have proof that evolutionists resisted the idea of genes, or are you confusing this with the popular idea that Mendel's work went unnoticed until the early 1900's?
But, Pasteur knew life wasn't just popping up in organic soups here and there, so he set out to prove it. If he were an Evolutionist, he probably would have spent his time trying to cause life to pop up from non-life.
But the abiogenesis Pasteur disproved involved the
spontaneous generation of complete,
cladistically continuous (with extant species), and
macroscopic lifeforms. Crucially, it also would have
disproved, not proved, the notion of common descent. The abiogenesis present in many modern biological theories of origins is completely different.
Besides, what "Biblical basis" would Pasteur have for believing that germs exist? After all, they cannot be classified into birds of the air, fish of the sea, crawling animals, or living beasts, therefore God did not create them within any of the six days of creation, therefore they were not created and they do not exist.
What he said! 
