Nabokov and evolution
Apr. 5th, 2006 10:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmcirvinThe new Seed blog has a post describing Vladimir Nabokov as an Intelligent Design proponent.
From what I've read about Nabokov's scientific work (mostly in admiring essays by Stephen Jay Gould, so it may well be that I'm missing other perspectives), I think this is a historical error. They're fitting old controversies into modern political categories.
ID as we know it is a modern outgrowth of the religious creationist movement. Nabokov belongs instead to an early-to-mid-20th-century naturalist tradition of skepticism of natural selection as the sole mechanism of evolution. He wasn't bucking science at all; it was a mainstream opinion, or at least a widespread gut feeling, in many fields that there just had to be something more teleological going on.
Today we tend to think of scientific progress in terms of revolutions that instantaneously change everything from an old view to a modern one, but I get a definite impression that it took almost a century before what is now called "the neo-Darwinian synthesis" was the accepted picture of how evolution worked in every subfield of biology. It took lots of new information about genetics and development to get there, and given the extraordinary, sweeping nature of Darwin's explanation, that is probably how it should have been.
From what I've read about Nabokov's scientific work (mostly in admiring essays by Stephen Jay Gould, so it may well be that I'm missing other perspectives), I think this is a historical error. They're fitting old controversies into modern political categories.
ID as we know it is a modern outgrowth of the religious creationist movement. Nabokov belongs instead to an early-to-mid-20th-century naturalist tradition of skepticism of natural selection as the sole mechanism of evolution. He wasn't bucking science at all; it was a mainstream opinion, or at least a widespread gut feeling, in many fields that there just had to be something more teleological going on.
Today we tend to think of scientific progress in terms of revolutions that instantaneously change everything from an old view to a modern one, but I get a definite impression that it took almost a century before what is now called "the neo-Darwinian synthesis" was the accepted picture of how evolution worked in every subfield of biology. It took lots of new information about genetics and development to get there, and given the extraordinary, sweeping nature of Darwin's explanation, that is probably how it should have been.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-05 08:13 am (UTC)