Jerry Bergman has written an article on CMI entitled, Did immune system antibody diversity evolve?
From the article:
The voluminous research on the evolution of the adaptive immune system describes in enormous detail both the similarities and differences between the immune systems of a wide variety of animals, but does not provide evidence for the evolution of these irreducibility complex systems. The complex, designed processes used to produce antibody diversity and then to fine tune the adaptive immune response are not evidence of Darwinian evolution, but rather of intelligent design.
Recent work has also shown that innate immune systems formerly thought to be very primitive are far more complex than once believed, blurring ‘traditional distinctions between adaptive and innate immunity.’38 Various phyla use ‘a remarkably extensive variety of solutions to meet fundamentally similar requirements for host protection.’37 The large discontinuity between the various means of generating immune system diversity in the animal kingdom makes it highly unlikely that one system could have evolved into another.
Creation scientists have also been hard at work in generating theoretical frameworks and hypotheses on a number of fronts.
1). A framework has been developed for explaining bacterial pathogenicity.
2). Fungi have been examined from a creationist perspective, and natural selection is considered as a process for the development of pathogenicity. Similar to the first paper, evolutionary processes are considered corrupting influences of the original designs.
3). Initial work has been done on developing a field of creation microbiology. Promising areas for future research and practical applications are also considered.
While those who pontificate about the absence of any real scientific progress being made from a creationist perspective, creation scientists are laying the groundwork for biological studies, and are generating testable scientific hypotheses. Whereas materialist scientist do not often recognize their metaphysical assumptions, creationist scientists and IDers are generally much more aware of the metaphysical assumptions of science on both sides of the issue.