Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover 'Intelligent Design' trial
Nature Immunology ^ | May 6, 2006 | Andrea Bottaro, Matt A Inlay & Nicholas J Matzke

Posted on 04/21/2006 9:17:58 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor

Immunology had an unexpected and decisive part in challenging the claims of 'Intelligent Design' proponents at the US trial on the teaching of evolution in public schools in Dover, Pennsylvania.

The latest skirmish in the ongoing controversy about the teaching of evolution in US schools ended decisively on 20 December 2005, when the introduction of 'Intelligent Design' (ID) in a public school biology class was struck down by US Federal Judge John E. Jones as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The case, 'Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District', was brought by 11 parents from Dover, Pennsylvania, represented pro bono by the Philadelphia law firm Pepper-Hamilton, together with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and assisted with scientific support by the National Center for Science Education, the Oakland, California–based nonprofit organization devoted to combating creationism. The parents challenged the school district's requirement that administrators read to ninth graders a disclaimer raising doubts about evolution, suggesting ID as a better alternative explanation for life's diversity and referring students to the ID supplemental textbook Of Pandas and People, 60 copies of which had been donated to the school library.

Although the magnitude of the win for science education was a surprise to some, the actual outcome of the trial was in very little doubt, for many reasons. Board members had made clear, through public declarations at board meetings and to the media, their intention to have some form of religious creationism taught in biology classes alongside evolution, which they considered akin to atheism. US Supreme Court rulings have established and repeatedly reaffirmed that governmental policies with the purpose or effect of establishing religion are inadmissible because they violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It also did not help their cause that Judge Jones found that some of the board members "either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath" about some statements and about the source of the donated Of Pandas and People books, the money for which was raised by one of the board members at his own church.

The most important and far-reaching aspect of the decision, however, was that the judge went beyond the narrow issue of the school board's actions and ruled broadly on the nature of ID and its scientific claims. After a 6-week trial that included extensive expert testimony from both sides on science, philosophy and the history of creationism, Jones ruled that ID is not science but "creationism re-labeled." Coming from the George W. Bush–appointed, lifelong Republican and church-going Judge Jones, the ruling was all the more stinging for ID advocates and made the predictable charge of 'judicial activism' harder to sustain. The ruling is likely to have a substantial effect on many other ongoing cases (and possibly future court decisions) regarding ID and evolution in science curricula from Georgia to Kansas to Ohio.

More fundamentally, the decision represents a considerable setback for ID advocates, who claim that some examples of biological complexity could only have originated by intelligent mechanisms, and for their movement's now almost-20-year-old effort to gain a foothold in school curricula and project an aura of scientific respectability. The ruling is also of great interest to scientists, not only because of its importance for science education but also because much of the trial's extensive expert testimony, both for and opposed to ID, focused directly on weighty scientific topics. Judge Jones analyzed and dismissed the core 'scientific' assertions of the ID movement—immunology had an unexpectedly large and relevant part in his reaching those conclusions.

Although the field of evolutionary and comparative immunology has a long and rich history, dating back at least to 1891 (ref. 1), and remains an exciting and rapidly progressing area of research, its direct involvement in the controversies about evolution in schools can be attributed mainly to Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania), leading ID advocate and star expert witness for the defense at this trial. In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, a commonly cited example of ID-based 'science', Behe devotes an entire chapter to the immune system, pointing to several of its features as being particularly refractory to evolutionary explanations. Behe's antievolutionary argument relies on a characteristic he calls "irreducible complexity": the requirement for the presence of multiple components of certain complex systems (such as a multiprotein complex or biochemical cascade) for the system to accomplish its function. As such irreducibly complex systems by definition work only when all components are present; Behe claims they cannot arise by the sequential addition and modification of individual elements from simpler pre-existing systems, thus defying 'darwinian' evolutionary explanations.

By analogy with human 'machines', ID advocates argue that irreducibly complex systems are most likely the product of an intelligent, teleological activity. Several scientists, including ourselves, have criticized Behe's argument, pointing out how irreducibly complex systems can arise through known evolutionary mechanisms, such as exaptation, 'scaffolding' and so on. Nevertheless, with few exceptions, the topic has been explicitly addressed mostly in book reviews, philosophy journals and on the internet, rather than in peer-reviewed scientific publications, which may have allowed it to mostly escape the critical scrutiny of scientists while gaining considerable popularity with the lay public and, in particular, with creationists.

In chapter 6 of Darwin's Black Box, Behe claims that the vertebrate adaptive immune system fulfills the definition of irreducible complexity and hence cannot have evolved. Some of his arguments will seem rather naive and misguided to immunologists. For example, Behe argues that working antibodies must exist in both soluble and membrane form, which therefore must have appeared simultaneously because one form would be useless without the other. He also claims that antibodies are completely functionless without secondary effector mechanisms (such as the complement system), which in turn require antibodies for activation. These putative 'chicken-and-egg' conundrums are easily belied by existing evidence (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html).

Behe also spends considerable time on what he alleges is a hopelessly intractable problem in evolutionary immunology: the origin of the mechanism of somatic recombination of antigen receptor genes. He argues that because variable-diversity-joining recombination is dependent on the coexistence of proteins encoded by recombination-activating genes (RAG proteins), recombination signal sequences and antigen receptor gene segments, it is ultimately too complex to have arisen by naturalistic, undirected evolutionary means because the three components could not have come together in a 'fell swoop' and would have been useless individually. In fact, Behe confidently declares that the complexity of the immune system "dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration". About the scientific literature, Behe claims it has "no answers" as to how the adaptive immune system may have originated2.

In particular, Behe criticizes a 1994 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science paper advancing the hypothesis that the RAG system evolved by lateral transfer of a prokaryotic transposon, an idea initially suggested in a 1979 paper and expanded in 1992. Behe ridicules the idea as a "jump in the box of Calvin and Hobbes," with reference to the comic strip in which a child and his stuffed tiger imaginary friend use a large cardboard box for fantasy trips and amazing physical transformations.

The timing for the criticism could not have been worse, as soon after publication of Darwin's Black Box, solid evidence for the transposon hypothesis began accumulating with the demonstration of similarities between the variable-diversity-joining recombination and transposition mechanisms and also between shark RAG1 and certain bacterial integrases. Since then, a steady stream of findings has continued to add more substance to the model, as RAG proteins have been shown to be capable of catalyzing transposition reactions, first in vitro and then in vivo, and to have even closer structural and mechanistic similarities with specific transposases. Finally, in 2005, the original key prediction of the transposon hypothesis was fulfilled with the identification of a large invertebrate transposon family bearing both recombination signal sequence–like integration sequences and a RAG1 homolog. When faced with that evidence during an exchange on the internet, Behe simply 'shrugged' and said that evidence was not sufficient, asking instead for an infinitely detailed, step-by-step mutation account (including population sizes, relevant selective pressures and so on) for the events leading to the appearance of the adaptive immune system (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/behes_meaningle.html).

That background set the stage for the crucial face-off at the trial. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a cell biologist and textbook author who has written extensively on evolution and creationism, was the lead witness for the plaintiffs. Over the course of his testimony, Miller did his best to explain to the nonscientist audience the mechanisms of antibody gene rearrangement and the evidence corroborating the transposon hypothesis. Then, 10 days later, Behe took the stand. During cross-examination by the plaintiffs' lead counsel Eric Rothschild, Behe reiterated his claim about the scientific literature on the evolution of the immune system, testifying that "the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers on how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection." Rothschild then presented Behe with a thick file of publications on immune system evolution, dating from 1971 to 2006, plus several books and textbook chapters. Asked for his response, Behe admitted he had not read many of the publications presented (a small fraction of all the literature on evolutionary immunology of the past 35 years), but summarily rejected them as unsatisfactory and dismissed the idea of doing research on the topic as "unfruitful."

This exchange clearly made an impression on Judge Jones, who specifically described it in his opinion:

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

Other important scientific points stood out during trial relating to other purported irreducibly complex systems such as the flagellum and the clotting cascade, the nature of science itself and the lack of experimental tests and supporting peer-reviewed publications for ID. But the stark contrast between the lively and productive field of evolutionary immunology and the stubborn refusal by ID advocates such as Behe to even consider the evidence was undoubtedly crucial in convincing the judge that the ID movement has little to do with science. As Rothschild remarked in his closing argument,

Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. It's the immune system. It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.

Evolutionary immunologists should be pleasantly surprised by and proud of the effect their scientific accomplishments have had in this landmark judicial case. This commentary is meant to acknowledge their contribution on behalf of the Dover families, their lawyers and all the activists for rigorous science education who have participated in these proceedings. Most importantly, however, the Dover case shows that no scientific field is too remote from the hotly debated topics of the day and that no community is too small and removed from the great urban and scientific centers to be relevant. Immunologists must engage their communities and society at large in events related to public perceptions about science. Now more than ever, the participation of scientists is essential for the crafting of rational policies on scientific research and science education.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dover
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 301-318 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
Always nice to expose the arrogance of secular, atheist, anti-American absurdists such as yourself. Present your absolute proof of macro-evolution to the scientific world, or shut up. Right wing Professor my ass. Your need to always denigrate others (Behe)to justify your own pathetic position is reprehensible. You aren't fit to hold his (or my) scientific jockstrap!
161 posted on 04/24/2006 7:02:39 AM PDT by Doc Savage (Of all these things you can be sure, only love...will endure.......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

You're a ranting moron. Go away.


162 posted on 04/24/2006 7:05:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
He's always pleasant, isn't he? lol
163 posted on 04/24/2006 7:08:04 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

Behe accepts macroevolution and common descent. You knew that, didn't you?


164 posted on 04/24/2006 7:11:22 AM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was that happened wasn't evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Just an attempt to get the thread pulled.
165 posted on 04/24/2006 7:11:51 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

It is kind of emaarrassing for some, isn't it?


166 posted on 04/24/2006 7:17:22 AM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was that happened wasn't evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Your modus operandi is to jump into a thread, call the resident evoids idiots, stupid, incapable of understanding science, and then post peripheral articles you google for no apparent reason other than to show you can do it. But when you get some of the same back you retreat to "I'm a victim".

It's actually humorous.
167 posted on 04/24/2006 7:24:48 AM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

I think he just suggested that he is naked. Time to hide the small children.


168 posted on 04/24/2006 7:26:42 AM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Prospecting for oil is not done by plate-tectonicists. In real geology departments, plate-tectonicists are the doddering old guys who haven't done any real work in ages. The real work is done by petrophysicists, geologists, seismic stratigraphers, and oceanographers.


169 posted on 04/24/2006 7:31:01 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
I'm going to have to bill you for another overheated irony meter. This bit:

... secular, atheist, anti-American absurdists such as yourself...

followed by this:

Your need to always denigrate others (Behe)to justify your own pathetic position is reprehensible.

Droll buffoonery, though.

170 posted on 04/24/2006 7:36:57 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
I think the only issue is how to keep his jockstrap up. Maybe we could suggest some sort of fill material.
171 posted on 04/24/2006 7:39:06 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; js1138

You ask js1138, "Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned, as you have honestly and graciously admitted?"

I'm curious, do you believe that if someone doesn't have a degree in Biology, or a related degree, then they shouldn't believe evolution is true? Or perhaps, the only way to believe evolution is true is to have a degree in Biology?


172 posted on 04/24/2006 8:03:57 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Are you logged in?


173 posted on 04/24/2006 8:04:02 AM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was that happened wasn't evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

It makes me wonder how anyone could believe in conservatism without a PhD in Political Science.


174 posted on 04/24/2006 8:07:45 AM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was that happened wasn't evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Who on the human Genome project had an evolutionist background?

I looked into HUGO, the official web site of the human genome project, and found a list of the original founding scientists. I took the first two obviously english speakers on the list that I ran into, and tracked down their academic autobiographies. They were

Walter Bodmer, who was, for a time, chairman of the trustees of the Natural History Museum.

and

Walter Gilbert, whose adademic precis' contains this quote: "Currently I am interested in, on one hand, the making of useful proteins in bacteria and, on the other hand, the structure of genes and the evolution of DNA sequences."

The charter of the organization contains the following fragment in it's mission statement:

* to characterise the nature, distribution and evolution of genetic variation in humans and other relevant organisms;

* to study the relationship between genetic variation and the environment in the origins and characteristics of human populations and the causes, diagnoses, treatments and prevention of disease;

and I found a couple of lecture topics in powerpoint presented by the organization:

Parallel Evolution of Primate Genomes and Transcriptomes - Svante Pääbo

Is less more? - testing the importance of gene loss in human evolution - Chris Tyler-Smith

Ancient Origins & Modern Diseases: the Mitochondrial Connection Between - Douglas C. Wallace

I don't suppose you can find someone on the list of founders who would claim, in writing, to be NOT an evolutionist?

175 posted on 04/24/2006 8:59:15 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
do you believe that if someone doesn't have a degree in Biology, or a related degree, then they shouldn't believe evolution is true?

No. Not at all.

The question, though, is on what basis does one believe?

176 posted on 04/24/2006 9:17:21 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.

Bravo.

177 posted on 04/24/2006 9:28:57 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donh
It's somewhat more clever than the commoner creationist theme of just denying the scientific value of inductive reasoning entirely, but not by much.

Exactly. You nailed trollhappy right here.

178 posted on 04/24/2006 9:45:52 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: js1138
We are here because a sizable minority of politically active people want to teach young earth creationism in science classes.

There is a sizable majority of people -- who unfortuantely are not as politically active as they should be -- who do not want it taught in our schools that we are all here by accident and in fact pathogens on blessed Gaia, which a small minority of people have managed to impose through manipulations that go beyond legislative action.

179 posted on 04/24/2006 9:54:04 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
There is a sizable majority of people -- who unfortuantely are not as politically active as they should be -- who do not want it taught in our schools that we are all here by accident and in fact pathogens on blessed Gaia.

I'd be one of those. So, I'll warrant, would all of the regular pro-evolution posters here.

Got anything except ludicrous caricatures to offer?

180 posted on 04/24/2006 10:03:05 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 301-318 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson