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.
This is not true in any way shape or form and represents a severe misunderstanding of genetics and biological science.
The opposite is accurate. Genetics and findings that have come from basic genetics can and are interpreted within a theoretical evolutionary framework.
Your comment is interesting in that it is wrong and to to thextent that it is accurate or coherent it is 180 degress from the actual situation. It's interesting to see it turned around in such a manner and I'm wondering where you read the claim.
Perhaps partanoia will be the one next month.
Let me ask you a question. Have you ever taken a biology class in university?
Naw - its just that News/Activism is flooded by these threads daily by the same characters (even though they don't have jack to do with pressing issues like nukes in Iran and illegal immigration), so one can't help replying to the same people multiple times. Sometimes they have a meltdown and scamper off to a moderator to invoke the "don't talk to me rule". I guess that is their version of furthering conservatism in America (since you rarely if ever see them on any other kind of thread).
This is not true in any way shape or form and represents a severe misunderstanding of genetics and biological science.
Not in any way shape or form? Isn't this blanket denial as absurdly extreme as you're portraying evolutionists as being? For instance the mathematical formalisms, arguably the entire field, of "population genetics," which is certainly part of "the modern science of genetics," were explicitly developed, but leading evolutionary biologists, to address issues arising from evolutionary theory.
For instance the mathematical formalisms, arguably the entire field, of "population genetics," which is are certainly part of "the modern science of genetics," were explicitly developed, but by leading evolutionary biologists, to address issues arising from evolutionary theory.
the entire field, of "population genetics," which is certainly part of "the modern science of genetics," were explicitly developed, but leading evolutionary biologists, to address issues arising from evolutionary theory.
This is not an example of the claim I responded to. It's kind of 180 from it as well. (The modern science of genetics is based, in part, of the demonstrable facts of evolutionary theory.
To the extent that there is any merit in population genetics and the like, I'd say that again, it is the populatioin genetics that drives evolutionary theory and provides fodder for interpretation with evolutionary theory.
My point again being the discoveries that have saved evolutionary theory and provided information to becoe instrinsic to the ideas over tie have all coe from hard/basic scientists such as Mendel, Sutton, Morgan/Stuyvestant, Avery, Hershey and Chase, Watson and Crick, Pauling, Sanger and many others.
Never ever have evolutionists studying evolution moved the feld forward. Ironic, eh?
Tells us something.
It was no problem.
You are 100% wrong.
Evolution is a fact. Live with it.
I myself am very grateful for all the very knowledgeable supporters of evolution, who willingly provide lots of info, and links, and try to answer the many questions that are asked...I am constantly learning on these threads...
I certainly did not argue evolution is not a fact. My comments did not impact on evoltution as factual either. They addressed your mistaken comment on the nature of reseach vis-a-vis evolutionary theory.
See the discussion with stultis.
Perhaps you could provide some examples illustrating your original comment (the one I said was wrong and 180 degrees off).
Never ever have evolutionists studying evolution moved the feld forward. Ironic, eh?
I guess you must have a theory as to why paleontologists don't count as "evolutionists" as well?
Tells us something.
I guess so.
For example, that the discovery of facts from fields outside classical darwinian paleontology which confirm Darwin, somehow works to discredit his theories. Do you have a theory about how the Illuminati and the Rigelian Lizard People are somehow behind this?
This makes no sense. Why do you think findings that "confirm Darwin" "discredit his theories".
It doesn't even make coherent sense what you have written.
!?!?!?!?!?!? Wrong. Wildly wrong, in fact.
This was exactly my point about population genetics. Population genetics was constructed by evolutionists specifically studying evolution. The primary architects of population genetics were Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane and Ronald Fisher. These were all evolutionary biologists, specifically and intentionally applying mathematical genetics to evolutionary problems, and creating thereby this important and central field.
Tells us something.
Yep. Just not what you intended to tell.
I am merely observing that this is the third time in a week that I've seen the word obsession applied to evolutionists. The first time was directed at me. The two most recent instances were applied to someone else. At one point, one of us was positively stalked by an accuser.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, but I have taken a year of college biology, a year of college geology, a course in history of science, and chemistry and physics in high school.
I have been reading about the evolution debate since about 1965. I don't argue very deeply in the technical issues, but I can spot quote mining a mile away.
None of this matters if what I say is wrong, but I haven't been called on very many goofs. Mostly I don't have to worry. Neither you nor any of the other evolution critics have presented an alternative to debate.
Keep in mind the greatest critics of evolution should be evolutionists themselves, if it is a real science.
As far as being a critic of it, I don;t think that's what you mean and in terms of what you mean I am in no way a critic.
As far as alternatives to evolution, why do you think someone should present an alternative?
Thanks for the honest upfront answer on your scientific background.
Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned, as you have honestly and graciously admitted?
Give me some evidence from my years of posting that I am scientifically illiterate.
This makes no sense. Why do you think findings that "confirm Darwin" "discredit his theories".
I don't, but you apparently do. I was being sarcastic.
It doesn't even make coherent sense what you have written.
That's because I'm repeating what you said in post 46, minus the slightly insane suggestion that, for example, Watson doesn't count as an evolutionist.
In addition to population genetics, there's also the phenomena of "fragile breakage". This is the theory that chromosomes rearrangements aren't random, but that instead chromosomes tend to break at certain points. (Kind of like volcanoes don't occur randomly, but are more common at boundaries between tectonic plates.)
This also came directly out of evolutionary studies, specifically when researches found problems explaining conserved chromosome segments between humans and mice on a "random breakage" model. Since then the fragile breakage theory, IIRC, has turned out to have other implications, e.g. in medicine.
I'd bet there are dozens more examples, if I was more conversant with genetics.
Post 54.
I don't mean anything negative by it.
Also, I just read my comment earlier. It was: "Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned,".
I did not say you were scientifcally illiterate. I used the term unlearned.
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.