Vladimir Nabokov: An Embarrassing Problem for Darwinians

“When a butterfly has to look like a leaf, not only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered but markings mimicking grub-bored holes are generously thrown in. ‘Natural Selection,’ in the Darwinian sense, could not explain the miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior, nor could one appeal to the theory of ‘the struggle for life’ when a protective device was carried to a point of mimetic subtlety, exuberance, and luxury far in excess of a predator's power of appreciation. I discovered in nature the non-utilitarian delights that I sought in art. Both were a form of magic, both were a game of intricate enchantment and deception.”

The above paragraph was written, not by William Jennings Bryan or Billy Sunday, but by the decidedly irreligious author of Lolita and Pale Fire (and, more importantly for my money, the translator of Pushkin), Vladimir Nabokov.

It turns out that Nabokov served as the curator of lepidoptera (butterflies) at Harvard University’s Museum of Comparative Zoology in the 1940s. In fact, according to his biographer, Nabokov “became the authority on the little-studied blue butterflies (polyommatini) of North and South America” and was “a pioneer in the study of butterflies’ microscopic anatomy, distinguishing otherwise almost identical blues by differences in their genital parts.” And besides his novels and short stories, he published articles in such scientific journals as The Entomologist, The Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, The Lepidopterist News, and Psyche: A Journal of Entomology.

Of course, this creates a problem of embarrassment in the secular academic circles where Nabokov’s literary work has been so highly regarded. I mean, what’s with a renowned liberal humanist vigorously disputing evolution -- and doing so from the most intricate and informed scientific reasoning?

Richard Dawkins, call your office.

Where Did It All Come From?

There are really only two options in the end. Either there is a personal God Who made everything (carefully, purposefully and in keeping with His moral character) or everything is mere meaninglessness, an absurd collision of matter and chance to which the only authentic response is despair.

How incomparably sweet then that the revelation of Holy Scripture corresponds to the overwhelming evidence of the world, the moral conscience, and the universal longing of the human heart in acknowledging that God is there…and He is not silent.

God's In the Math

Absolutely stunning!

Pass it along.   

Uh, A Couple of Big Problems with Darwinian Evolution

Check out this nifty 5-minute Prager U clip, "From Bacteria to Beethoven."

Really? Complexity and Order Out of Sheer Chaos?

Check out this super cool video. It’s 6 1/2 minutes but well worth your time. It’s a great “pass along” clip too. A very creative, persuasive, and science-based argument.

The Simple Truth of Creationism

"The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."  (William A. Dembski)

Another Very Embarrassing Problem for Darwinians

In continuing this month’s series of posts dealing with evolution, intelligent design, and divine creation, here is a slightly edited note from a Vital Signs Blog post from way back in July of 2008. However, the post’s content is as relevant as ever and even the article I mention at the conclusion is still online. Check it out.

“When a butterfly has to look like a leaf, not only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered but markings mimicking grub-bored holes are generously thrown in. ‘Natural Selection,’ in the Darwinian sense, could not explain the miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior, nor could one appeal to the theory of ‘the struggle for life’ when a protective device was carried to a point of mimetic subtlety, exuberance, and luxury far in excess of a predator’s power of appreciation. I discovered in nature the non-utilitarian delights that I sought in art. Both were a form of magic, both were a game of intricate enchantment and deception.”

The above paragraph was written, not by William Jennings Bryan or Billy Sunday, but by the decidedly irreligious author of Lolita and Pale Fire (and, more importantly for my money, the translator of Pushkin), Vladimir Nabokov.

It turns out that Nabokov served as the curator of lepidoptera (butterflies) at Harvard University’s Museum of Comparative Zoology in the 1940s. In fact, according to his biographer, Nabokov “became the authority on the little-studied blue butterflies (polyommatini) of North and South America” and was “a pioneer in the study of butterflies’ microscopic anatomy, distinguishing otherwise almost identical blues by differences in their genital parts.” And besides his novels and short stories, he published articles in such scientific journals as The Entomologist, The Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, The Lepidopterists' News, and Psyche: A Journal of Entomology.

Of course, this creates a problem of embarrassment in the secular academic circles where Nabokov’s literary work has been so highly regarded. I mean, what’s with a renowned liberal humanist vigorously disputing evolution -- and doing so from the most intricate and informed scientific reasoning?

Richard Dawkins, call your office.

Here’s more from the Discovery Institute.

Intelligent Design Creates the “Ultimate Skepticism”

Speaking of the Intelligent Design movement and the resulting cracks in the “great wall” of evolution, America’s most compelling novelist, the late Tom Wolfe writes...

“This, science’s Ultimate Skepticism, has been spreading ever since then. Over the past two years even Darwinism, a sacred tenet among American scientists for the past seventy years, has been beset by doubts. Scientists -- not religiosi -- notably the mathematician David Berlinski (‘The Deniable Darwin,’ Commentary, June 1996) and the biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box, 1996), have begun attacking Darwinism as a mere theory, not a scientific discovery, a theory woefully unsupported by fossil evidence and featuring, at the core of its logic, sheer mush.

Dennett and Dawkins, for whom Darwin is the Only Begotten, the Messiah, are already screaming. They’re beside themselves, utterly apoplectic. Wilson, the giant, keeping his cool, has remained above the battle.” (Tom Wolfe, “Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died,” first published in Orthodoxy Today, 1996)

Evolution: The Worst Pseudo-Science Scam of Them All

Throughout the month of July, I will be posting here on Vital Signs Blog various articles, quotations, and references to trustworthy sources dealing with the ethereal, though insistent, claims about evolution. I do so because evolution theories have had such an enormous effect on current culture – an effect that has been devastating to the max on everything from education to politics to art to religious practice to the gross hindrance of genuine scientific inquiry itself. 

So stay tuned.

For the first entry, here’s a nifty 10-minute video video exploring the remarkable lack of empirical foundations for what evolutionists insist is "one of their best" arguments. So, cmon; let's check out this "whale of a tale."

Evolution's "Whale of a Tale"

Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition. But is it really? Here is an enlightening look at one of the evolutionist's "best" arguments. It's a very interesting, effective, and even entertaining look at the huge differences between evolution assumptions and scientific facts.

 

Where Did It All Come From?

There are really only two options in the end. Either there is a personal God Who made everything (carefully, purposefully and in keeping with His moral character) or everything is mere meaninglessness, an absurd collision of matter and chance to which the only authentic response is despair.

How incomparably sweet then that the revelation of Holy Scripture corresponds to the overwhelming evidence of the world, the moral conscience, and the universal longing of the human heart in acknowledging that God is there…and He is not silent.

Evolutionists Are Terrified of DNA

On Intelligent Design

"The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence." 

(William A. Dembski)

Life’s Beautiful Complexity: Random Chaos or Intelligent Design?

Check out this super cool video. It’s 6 1/2 minutes but well worth your time. It’s a great “pass along” clip too. A very creative, persuasive, and science-based argument.

Thanksgiving Leftovers

With the whirlwind of Thanksgiving, family visits, football, shopping, and so on, you may have missed these important articles.

* “Obama’s Moral Hypocrisy on the Syrian-Refugee Question Is Astounding” (Charles Krauthammer, National Review)

* “Disturbing: 57 Paris Airport Workers Are On Terror Watch List” (Leah Barkoukis, Town Hall)

* “Pakistan: Suspected Muslim Radicals Burn Christian TV Station to the Ground” (Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart)

* “The latest wart on the rancid Iran deal” (New York Post Editorial Board)

* “Video: Proof the Mainstream News Is Scripted” (Conservative Outfitters)

* “Former Atheist Astrophysicist Explains Her Journey to Christianity” (James Bishop, Historical Jesus Studies)

* “Give Thanks for Our Freedom to Laugh at Daft College Students” (George Will, National Review)

* “Priority hire firefighter who flunked physical injured 10 days into job” (Susan Edelman, New York Post)

Yet More Breakthroughs Using Adult Stem Cells

Scientists at the University of Cambridge have successfully created 'mini-lungs' using stem cells derived from skin cells of patients with cystic fibrosis, and have shown that these can be used to test potential new drugs for this debilitating lung disease. 

The research is one of a number of studies that have used stem cells -- the body's master cells -- to grow 'organoids', 3D clusters of cells that mimic the behaviour and function of specific organs within the body. Other recent examples have been 'mini-brains' to study Alzheimer's disease and 'mini-livers' to model liver disease. Scientists use the technique to model how diseases occur and to screen for potential drugs; they are an alternative to the use of animals in research.

(Of course, this technique of using adult stem cells is also an alternative to the dead end exploitation of embryonic stem cells.)

Read more about this development in this Science Daily report, "Scientists grow 'mini-lungs' to aid study of cystic fibrosis."

And that's not all.

Just two days earlier, Science Daily published this remarkable story, “A Single-Cell Breakthrough: newly developed technology dissects properties of single stem cells.”

Researchers from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine have figured out a way to isolate and grow thousands elusive intestinal stem cells at one time, a high throughput technological advance that could give scientists the ability to study stem cell biology gastrointestinal disorders like never before.

[It's] a way to isolate and grow thousands elusive intestinal stem cells at one time, a high throughput technological advance that could give scientists the ability to study stem cell biology gastrointestinal disorders like never before.

The human gut is a remarkable thing. Every week the intestines regenerate a new lining, sloughing off the equivalent surface area of a studio apartment and refurbishing it with new cells. For decades, researchers have known that the party responsible for this extreme makeover were intestinal stem cells, but it wasn't until this year that Scott Magness, PhD, associate professor of medicine, cell biology and physiology, and biomedical engineering, figured out a way to isolate and grow thousands of these elusive cells in the laboratory at one time. This high throughput technological advance now promises to give scientists the ability to study stem cell biology and explore the origins of inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal cancers, and other gastrointestinal disorders...

Here is the rest of that article.

Teaching Evolution in Church? An Invitation from Jack Niewold.

Jack Niewold, the author of Frail Web of Intention, has a provocative and perceptive answer to the question shown on the button at left. Check it out.

Actually, I've been looking for someone who can and will, but I haven't found anyone yet. It seems most teachers of science in public schools know very little about evolution. Yes, they all have an opinion about it, but few of them can state evolution in two or three brief propositions. They have an "attitude" toward evolution, but when it comes to either the actual evolutionary history of the earth or the theory itself, they are woefully unfit to teach it. 

If anyone can find a teacher who can tell an adult Sunday School class what the theory of evolution is all about, and back it up with examples and specific historical and scientific evidence, I'd be all ears, so to speak. 

On the other hand I know quite a few young-earth and old-earth Creationists who have evolution down cold. You'd want to be well-prepared when you take them on, or you'd get flamed by their take on, say, the Cambrian explosion. 

I know some really impressive intelligent design Christians too who would make mincemeat of many of the assumptions of evolutionists. They're conversant not just in biology, but in physics and chemistry. 

We have on our side a number of people who've debated with the late Christopher Hitchens and won, like Dinesh D'Souza, and one, Ben Stein, who made Richard Dawkins out to be a fool.

Two of the world's preeminent philosophers, Alvin Plantinga and J. Budzisewski have proposed arguments for the existence of God that have yet to be logically refuted. 

We even have a theistic evolutionist or two, like Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the genome project. He sees no conflict between belief in Jesus Christ and adherence to a kind of evolution under the direction of a personal God. 

Though you'd be welcome, don't think you'd be coming into our church to teach children about evolution. You've already got them several hours a day. Adults can make children believe any number of things. You'd be here to teach other adults, and while we're courteous and epistemically humble, we aren't patsies. We know a faith system when we see it and would hold you to the science.

So let us know how this sounds. You get your people, and we'll get ours, and go at it.

Where Did It All Come From?

There are really only two options in the end. Either there is a personal God Who made everything (carefully, purposefully and in keeping with His moral character) or everything is mere meaninglessness, an absurd collision of matter and chance to which the only authentic response is despair.

How incomparably sweet then that the revelation of Holy Scripture corresponds to the overwhelming evidence of the world, the moral conscience, and the universal longing of the human heart in acknowledging that God is there…and He is not silent.

Natural Marriage Is Unique...and Critically Important!

Here's more.

When Is the Beginning Not the Beginning?

The science itself could not be clearer. Conception occurs when the sperm fertilizes the egg. It is at that very moment that a new life begins. After that, it's all about growth and development, baby.

Any embryology textbook will lay out this fact. Life begins at conception. And conception is fertilization. Science has spoken…and science doesn't change.

However, as I pointed out in a post yesterday ("Change the Words, Change the World"), agents of social change frequently begin changing attitudes by changing the language in which the issues are discussed. A case in point is human reproduction, more specifically the intersection of scientific realities with the ideologies involved in the sexual revolution and the population control movement.

The language of reproduction began to change in the 1960s when population control advocates were looking to sell so-called "birth control" chemicals and devices among cultures that had a high respect for prenatal life. The problem was that the action of the pills and IUDs acted (at least some of the time) subsequent to conception. That is, they didn't always prevent conception. They prevented the embryonic baby from developing further. And that is abortion.

The primary techniques utilized by these misnamed drugs and devices was to prevent the developing person (already begun at conception and now growing quite rapidly as he or she made it down the Fallopian tube) from implanting in the wall of the cervix or, if implantation did occur, to dislodge the embryo from its new home in the womb. But this is all after conception. These drugs and devices destroy lives that have already begun.

Again, the science couldn't be clearer.  And science isn't going to change. But the language…that's another thing. So that's where the population control advocates (and others who wanted to promote the sexual revolution) went. They pressured groups like the American Medical Association to change the definition of conception, to move it further down the line somewhere.

But where? Where along the timeline of the prenatal child's development could the new definition be placed? Anywhere would be arbitrary. Anywhere would be unscientific. Because the new life had already begun at fertilization and it will continue until…well, until death.

The response from the would-be population controllers? "Put the new definition of conception anywhere you want -- as long as it's after the abortifacient action that these new drugs and devices utilize. You see, we can't push the product if people realize they act post-conception. They don't want abortion on their conscience. So shift the definition so that we can sell them as preventing pregnancy rather than stopping a pregnancy that's already underway."

And that's what happened. Though it makes no scientific sense, though it's a lie of the most sinister proportions, the definition of conception was disconnected from fertilization and linked instead to the embryo's implantation in the uterine wall. The effects of this lie have been universal…and unbelievably damaging to life, health, family and culture.

This now brings me to this week's outrageous decision by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman which will require pharmacies to allow young girls to buy Plan B "morning-after" pills as well as its cheaper generic brands.

An AP News story, "Obama OK with morning-after pill sales at age 15," written by White House Correspondent Julie Pace and others, is the usual mix of mainstream journalism: a quite liberal slant on the matter from the reporter, a lot of omissions of relevant data, a lot of quotes from progressives, and one quick line to the contrary from a conservative voice. And there was this concluding paragraph, one that demonstrates just how brazenly the lie (shielded by the shift in language) continues to be promoted.

Ms. Pace writes, "If a woman already is pregnant, the morning-after pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg. According to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. Still, some critics say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, a contention that many scientists - and Korman, in his ruling - said has been discredited."

No, Judge Korman, the science of embryology hasn't been discredited in the least. The hard facts of reality, even when they are denied by fools and charlatans, still exist.

No, your honor, the discrediting that you (and AP reporters) should concentrate on is that awesome day when the immoral ideologies that underlie the population control movement -- ideologies that use smoke, mirrors and dirty tricks to take the lives of innocents -- will face a much higher court.