Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BarryA Responds to His Critics at Panda’s Thumb

Barry Arrington
August 12, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As I write this there have been 80 comments to my posts about the evidence issues implicated by the plaintiffs’ literature bluff at the Dover trial.  Our friends at Panda’s Thumb have also opened a thread to discuss my posts see (here) and also (here).  For those interested in my response to PT, read on.

1.  The Literature Bluff and Jones reliance on it.

To set the stage once again, here is the passage from the transcript where plaintiffs make their literature bluff followed by the passage from Judge Jones’ opinion where he swallowed it hook, line and sinker:

Q (from plaintiffs lawyer). We’ll return to that in a little while. Let’s turn back to Darwin’s Black Box and continue discussing the immune system. If you could turn to page 138?  Matt, if you could highlight the second full paragraph on page 138?  What you say is, “We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.”  That’s what you wrote, correct?

A (from Behe). And in the context that means that the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.
 

[Behe’s answer here is critical to the analysis.  His assertion is obviously NOT that there are no books or articles that generally discuss the evolution of the immune system.  Of course there are.  His assertion is that none of the books and articles provide detailed testable answers about how the immune system could have arisen through Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.  If he were to be impeached by the 58 books and records, the material impeaching him must go to what he said, not something he did not say.]

Q. Now, you were here when Professor Miller testified?
A. Yes.
Q. And he discussed a number of articles on the immune system, correct?
 

A. Yes, he did. . . .
 

Q. And these are not the only articles on the evolution of vertebrate immune system?

A. There are many articles.

[Behe concedes there are “many” articles that generally discuss the evolution of the immune system.  If that were the issue to which the 58 books and articles went, plaintiffs were impeaching him on a point he had conceded, which was strange indeed.]
 

Q. May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. Professor Behe, what I have given you has been marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 743.  

Q. And there are fifty-eight articles in here on the evolution of the immune system?
 

A. Yes. That’s what it seems to say . . .
 

Q. I’m going to read some titles here. We have Evolution of Immune Reactions by Sima and Vetvicka, are you familiar with that?

A. No, I’m not . . .
 

Q. You haven’t read those chapters?
 

A. No, I haven’t.
 

Q. You haven’t read the books that I gave you?
 

A. No, I haven’t.  I have read those papers that I presented though yesterday on the immune system.

Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no?

A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results.  So you get up to speed pretty quickly.  You don’t have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so.

Q. And all of these materials I gave you and, you know, those, including those you’ve read, none of them in your view meet the standard you set for literature on the evolution of the immune system?  No scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system?

A. Again in the context of that chapter, I meant no answers, no detailed rigorous answers to the question of how the immune system could arise by random mutation and natural selection, and yes, in my, in the reading I have done I have not found any such studies.
 

[This question and this answer are the nub of the issue.  Plaintiffs are trying to impeach Behe on a matter about which he does not disagree with them.  It is a matter of apples and oranges.  Behe says there are no books and articles giving a detailed account of the evolution of the immune system through Neo-Darwinian mechanisms, and plaintiffs attempt to impeach him by showing him a stack of books and articles that discuss the evolution of the immune system generally – do those books and articles actually impeach Behe’s assertion?  There is no way to tell on this record.]

Here is the excerpt from Jones’ opinion where he relies on the literature bluff.

“The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; [128]2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. ([129]2:31 (Miller)). 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.” ([130]23:19 (Behe)).”

Note that Jones ignored the distinction Behe made.  Behe said there were no DETAILED ACCOUNTS of the evolution of the immune system through Neo-Darwinian mechanism.  By the time it got to Jones’ opinion Behe was being quoted as saying there are no accounts of any kind of the evolution of the immune system.  As is clear from the transcript above, Behe said exactly the opposite.  Behe’s position is that yes, there are general accounts, just no detailed accounts.

2.  The books and articles were important for the information contained in them, or they were important for nothing at all.
 

Before I get into the specific criticisms, one thing should be made clear.  Over and over again, both in response to my posts and in their own posts, my critics keep saying that the only thing the plaintiffs were trying to prove with the 58 books and articles was the mere existence of the books and articles.  By this I take it they mean that the mere existence of 58 books and articles about the evolution of the immune system refuted Behe’s assertion that there are no detailed accounts of the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.  This is one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard, and it is difficult for me to credit that grown people would make it. 

The title of a book or article is evidence of nothing.  Only the information contained in a book or article is relevant.  Can I prove the existence of time travel by introducing as an exhibit a book entitled “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court?”  Of course not.  Because when one opens the book it is clearly a work of fiction.  Can I prove that scientists have developed a detailed account of the evolution of the immune system by introducing a book entitled “A Detailed Account of the Evolution of the Immune System?”  No, no, no.  The important thing about a book is not the promise of the title, but whether it delivers on the promise.  

That is why introducing 58 books and articles for no other purpose than to prove the existence of 58 books and articles with “evolution” and “immune system” in their title proves nothing.  Did any of these books actually deliver on the promise of their title?  On this record there is no way to tell.  Therefore, the point of my posts is that the evidence is meaningless and should have been excluded both as irrelevant (Rule 402) and as Hearsay (Rule 802) UNLESS the procedures of Rule 803(18) were followed.  Since the procedures of that rule were not followed, the defendants’ lawyers should have objected to it, and Jones should have (1) excluded it and (2) not relied on it in his opinion.

3.  The Second Post Was Based On A Review of the Transcript.
 

One critic quotes my second post where I said that after it became apparent that there was no testimony that the 58 books and articles were authoritative, they should have been objected to and excluded.  Then he chides me for being inconsistent by quoting from the first post where I said that based on the quotes in Gil’s thread it appeared that an authoritative foundation had been laid.

The answer to this is simple.  In my first post I included the following disclaimer:

“I was going to post this in Gil’s “Literature Bluffing” thread, but it got too long, so I am putting it in this post.  Let me preface this comment by stating that I have not reviewed the transcript of the Dover trial in detail, and I am basing what I am about to say on the information in the thread to Gil’s post.”

I wrote my second post after reading Behe’s testimony.  From that review it was clear that he had not stipulated that the 58 books and articles were authoritative.  Indeed, how could he since he was not even asked the question?

4.  PT Does Not Get the Basic Point.
 

One critic says:  “What Eric Rothschild (plaintiffs’ lawyer) was going after in the cross-examination was Behe’s claim that the scientific literature didn’t discuss the evolution of the immune system.”

Nonsense.  Pure drivel.  Behe admitted there were “many” articles discussing the evolution of the immune system:

Q. And these are not the only articles on the evolution of vertebrate immune system?

A. There are many articles.

Again, Behe’s point was not that there were no articles discussion the evolution of the immune system generally, but no articles providing a detailed account of its evolution through Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.

5.  There is more than one way to establish an article is authoritative.
 

My critics say that under my interpretation of Rule 803(18), a learned treatise can never be used to impeach an expert unless the expert that is being impeached admits that it is authoritative and that he agrees with it.  They say that under my view of the rule the following exchange could take place:  [Expert:]  ‘I’m sorry, I have no knowledge of this textbook that is basic to this field.’ [Lawyer:]‘Your honor, move to exclude this on the grounds that my expert doesn’t know a thing about it.’ [Court:] ‘Granted.’”

I never said this; indeed, I said just the opposite (see comment 39 to my second post).

In order to comply with Rule 803(18), the plaintiffs should have asked Behe one by one if each of the 58 books and articles was authoritative.  I am sure that after reviewing them one by one Behe would have said that all or most of them were.  For those that Behe refused to admit were authoritative, plaintiffs could have had another expert testify they were.

The first step of Rule 803(18) is usually not hard to meet.  My point is simply this.  There has to be some evidence from a person qualified to comment on the issue that a book or article is authoritative.  The judge is not entitled to simply assume that books and articles with fancy titles are authoritative. 

In the PT example, if expert A truly is unaware of a definitive work in the field, then the opposition could call expert B to testify that the work is definitive, and then impeach A with the work even if he had never read it.

6.  The books and articles were offered to prove the truth of the matters they asserted.
 

Another critic writes:  “Actually, BarryA is wrong on another count. The books and articles weren’t inadmissible because they were not hearsay. All of his discussion about learned treatises and the parameters of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(18) is meaningless. The books and articles weren’t offered to prove the truth of any statement contained in them. They were offered instead to contradict Behe’s claim that there were no peer-reviewed articles discussing the evolution of the immune system. That being the case, they’re not hearsay and there’s no reason to exclude them from evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).”

Wrong.  Please see comment 2 above.

 

 

 

Comments
MikeFNQ, You say: “DETAILED, Intelligent Design definition: That amount of detail presently available, plus just that little bit more.” I would put it more like this: “DETAILED, meaning that level of detail necessary to make the account something more than, as Behe writes, an imaginary box flying over treacherous evolutionary terrain that nature would have to try to cross on foot.”BarryA
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Andrea, I am skeptical of your claims. If a detailed account exists, why don’t you just point out where it is and I will go look at it. You might say I\'m calling your bluff.  In the mean time, I will refer back to a previous post on this issue by Dembski, where he quoted Behe as follows: \"Professor Bottaro, perhaps sensing that the paper he cites won’t be persuasive to people who are skeptical of Darwinian claims, laments that “Behe and other ID advocates will retreat further and further into impossible demands, such as asking for mutation-by-mutation accounts of specific evolutionary pathways…” Well, yes, of course that’s exactly what I ask of Darwinian claims — a mutation-by-mutation account of critical steps (which will likely be very, very many), at the amino acid level. But that’s neither a “retreat” (In Darwin’s Black Box (page 176) I implied that many small details would be necessary for a real Darwinian explanation) nor is it unreasonable — that’s simply what’s necessary to actually explain the appearance of a complex, functional system in a Darwinian fashion, to show that it could indeed happen as Darwinists claim. Proteins change single mutation by single mutation, amino acid by amino acid, so that’s the level of explanation that is needed. What part of “numerous, successive, slight” is so hard to understand? \"And not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more. Alternatively, Darwinists could present a series of experiments showing that RM/NS is capable of building a system of the complexity of the adaptive immune system. Professors Orr and Bottaro seem to think that because Darwinists’ fantastic claims are very difficult to support in a convincing fashion, then they should just be given a pass, and that everyone should agree with them without the required evidence. Fuggedaboudit. As Russell Doolittle helpfully showed, Darwinists find it easy to imagine that evolution could proceed along pathways which nature would never allow. Like Calvin and Hobbes, in their imaginations they hop into a box and fly over treacherous evolutionary terrain that nature would have to try to cross on foot. There is no reason for skeptics to trust Darwinists’ imaginations.\\\" [Dembski again:] The following reply to this passage on Talk.origins is pure Darwhiner. The amazing thing is that this actually passes for high level argumentation in Darwhiner circles, replete with backslapping and hearty congratulations for showing up those IDiots. The level of dysfunctional group-think in these circles is staggering. But hey, enough of my commentary — enjoy: [The reply, such as it is:] \"In fact, all of this suggests to me a better way to oppose Behe’s views. Instead of discussing the validity of his arguments, I think we should challenge his identity, his very humanity if you will. After all, how do we know that Michael Behe was born of human parents? I mean, we know that humans are generally born of human parents, and Behe is demonstrably human, so reasonable inference (rather than an insistence that we explore the facts of every single individual’s development) would normally allow us to assume that the same processes were at work in Behe’s case, wouldn’t they? Behe has convinced me otherwise. I think it is only fair to suggest that until he can provide cell division by cell division documentation of his development from embryo to adult, plus a detailed account of the environmental influences upon this development along with the expected time scale for each of the changes he _claims_ occurred, we are justified in believing he is the progeny of little green men (and women?) from Mars. Absent evidence to the contrary, I believe Behe should relinquish his position at Lehigh until this mess is cleared up. Oh, and a visit to the INS is probably a good idea (for a, yes you guessed it, green card). I mean, what part of “perverse, evidential, demand” is so hard to understand?\"BarryA
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Andrea wrote: Well, I beg to differ, and so would pretty much every other immunologist out there.
Not this one: Caroline Crocker, and she was on your side for most of her life, until she investigated the matter further. The "predictions" you speak of deal with confirmation of some sort of hierarchical relationships among organisms. Such information is supportive of either common design, common descent, or some combination of both. It does not imply Darwinism was the mechanism of immune system formation. Even Behe is accepting of the phylogentic relationships posed, but what is at issue is mechanism, not phylogeny. Your side argues Darwinism causes patterns that look phylogentic and that because we see patterns that look phylogentic, therefore Darwinism is true. But one could conversely say Design causes patterns that look phylogentic and because we see patterns that look phylogentic, therefore Design is true. I hope you see therefore, the weakness in the inferences being promoted by the anti-IDers. Salvadorscordova
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
No on two grounds. First, a book or article can be authoritative in a general sense without addressing, much less refuting, Behe’s position. That is the case here. I don’t know for certain, but I feel fairly confident that the 58 books and articles were authoritative accounts of the current learning with respect to the evolution of the immune system. At the same time, none of the books or articles provided a DETAILED account of that evolution via Neo-Darwinian mechanisms — i.e. none of them refuted Behe’s point. Well, I beg to differ, and so would pretty much every other immunologist out there. As far as the evolution of the VDJ recombination system, all the critical predictions of the model have now been empirically confirmed (even beyond expectations, I should say), which pretty much settles it, unless of course contrary evidence surfaces. In DBB, Behe argued that the system would doom evolutionary explanations to frustration not because we didn't have a step-by-step account of the entire evolutionary pathway (with mutations, selection parameters, population sizes etc), but because the individual components or subsets of the system would not be functional in isolation, which is the IC claim in a nutshell. This has been proven wrong. The claim for infinite detail is just a fall-back position by Behe, and one which makes the issue of IC pretty much meaningless at this point (we don't have infinite detail for the evolution of pretty much anything, IC or not). As I mentioned in a different thread here, I have discussed both the evidence and Behe's response to it at PT: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the_revenge_of.html http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/behes_meaningle.html As for the legal issues, again, I am entirely unqualified to argue with your interpretation regarding the rules, and I do not intend to. All I am saying is that, one way or another, the content of the articles would have ended up in the record, even if it would have taken a significant amount of time to read through the salient parts. Certainly the plaintiffs' team was aware of the articles' content (as Nick Matzke's annotated bibliography shows). At best, Behe could have argued that he disagreed with this or that statement, which a plaintiff's expert later on could have confirmed was in fact "authoritative". By all means, I understand that legal proceedings have specific rules to follow, but my impression is that the outcome would have been the same, and probably the last thing Behe would have wanted was to actually having to discuss in court each individual piece of evidence and conclusion supporting the evolution of the immune system, knowing full well it represented the consensus in the field.Andrea
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
"For instance, Behe argued in Darwin’s Black Box that the immunoglobulin gene recombination system would “doom all Darwinian explanations to frustration”, but in fact the very explanation he dismissed turned out to be very successful in predicting future evidence since then, and the then-tentative model is now overwhelmingly accepted among immunologists. That’s how science progresses." - Andrea Andrea, I'm not a scientist, so I don't know if what you've written is right or not. But I'm very skeptical after seeing how the Panda people misconstrued Behe's testimony, then refuted what he didn't say. Are you saying that immunologists have a detailed, testable model of how the immunoglobulin gene recombination system might have evolved? Or are you making a lesser claim?russ
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
DETAILED, Intelligent Design definition: That amount of detail presently available, plus just that little bit more.MikeFNQ
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Andrea “So, the issue is not that the papers were not authoritative, but that the “official rulebook” may not have been followed in presenting them at trial.” No on two grounds. First, a book or article can be authoritative in a general sense without addressing, much less refuting, Behe’s position. That is the case here. I don’t know for certain, but I feel fairly confident that the 58 books and articles were authoritative accounts of the current learning with respect to the evolution of the immune system. At the same time, none of the books or articles provided a DETAILED account of that evolution via Neo-Darwinian mechanisms -- i.e. none of them refuted Behe’s point. Secondly, you can read rule 803(18) in my first post. You will see that it allows only the relevant portion of the text to be read into evidence. It does not allow the book as a whole to be admitted under any circumstances.BarryA
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
In order to comply with Rule 803(18), the plaintiffs should have asked Behe one by one if each of the 58 books and articles was authoritative. I am sure that after reviewing them one by one Behe would have said that all or most of them were. For those that Behe refused to admit were authoritative, plaintiffs could have had another expert testify they were. So, the issue is not that the papers were not authoritative, but that the "official rulebook" may not have been followed in presenting them at trial. Fair enough, though that doesn't seem to alter the substance of the matter (the papers exist and are authoritative), nor would have affected the outcome if the rules had been followed (they would have been admitted). Also, I doubt Behe would have come out looking very good challenging the authoritativeness of peer-reviewed papers written by experts in a field rather distinct from his own, some of them Nobel Prize winners. "The very fact that the Darwinist side presented a stack of *58 books and articles* on the immune system, shows that it in fact has *no* “detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.”" That's an oversimplification. What that shows is just that understanding the evolution of something like the immune system is not something that can be addressed in a single paper, but it's a process that spans over decades of hypothesis testing and evidence collecting. With regard to specific sub-systems, however, which can be dealt with within a reasonable literature size, Behe's resistance to accept evolutionary explanations has clearly been shown to be - shall we say - premature. For instance, Behe argued in Darwin's Black Box that the immunoglobulin gene recombination system would "doom all Darwinian explanations to frustration", but in fact the very explanation he dismissed turned out to be very successful in predicting future evidence since then, and the then-tentative model is now overwhelmingly accepted among immunologists. That's how science progresses.Andrea
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
"I enjoy hearing strong arguments from the other side. In fact I find it much more interesting to encounter a strong argument from a critic than a weak argument from a supporter. By showing us our own blind spots they help us to build better arguments and to the degree that their criticisms are valid they can lead us to new insights." Sagebrush, I agree. I just read a bunch of (mostly) worthless reviews of Jonathan Wells' latest book at Amazon, and it was mostly "He's a crazy Moonie", "ID has no peer-reviewed papers", "Judge Jones proved that..." type of stuff. Kind of hard to sharpen your intellect rubbing up against that type of stuff, and it definitely provides no new insight.russ
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
I enjoy hearing strong arguments from the other side. In fact I find it much more interesting to encounter a strong argument from a critic than a weak argument from a supporter. By showing us our own blind spots they help us to build better arguments and to the degree that their criticisms are valid they can lead us to new insights. Unfortunately PT is disappointing in this regard. Among the shining intellects that champion the dominant paradigm I would hope to find many insightful and helpful criticisms. But instead I see only deliberate obtuseness, sophomoric reasoning, and frat-boy humor. Is this sort of ankle-biting the best that they have? C'mon pandas -- raise your standards. You would be doing us all a favor.sagebrush gardener
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
This reminds me of the story when Einstein was asked about the many scientists who had refuted his theory of relativity, and Einstein replied that there only needed to be *one*! The very fact that the Darwinist side presented a stack of *58 books and articles* on the immune system, shows that it in fact has *no* "detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection." If it did, it would only have to read out *one page* in all those 58 books and articles where it is. That they didn't, proves Behe's claim that there is *no* such "detailed testable answer... to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection." Stephen E. Jones http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/senojes
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Barry, if you don't touch a sore point, they don't cry out. Keep it up. They cry out for rational thought. That is your gift, use it.idnet.com.au
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Darwinists think that they are the world's greatest legal experts. Ed "It's My Way or the Highway" Brayton permanently kicked me off his blog "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" because he did not like my interpretation of a federal court rule. On Panda's Thumb I cited a Supreme Court ruling that actually supported the position of Lenny Flank and he responded by sneering, "when did you become a lawyer, Larry?"Larry Fafarman
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Scott, Whoops, my bad.BarryA
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Remember, Barry... it's The Panda's Thumb crowd. We need to speak very sllllloooooowwwwlllyyy and use small words.Scott
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Barry, I think you've drawn blood.tribune7
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
1 … 3 4 5

Leave a Reply