The Wonder of Witch-Hazel Blooming in Winter

If you are a careful observer of the living world around you, I suspect you will agree that this world is an open invitation to be amazed.  Whether we look through our own eyes, or through a magnifying lens, a microscope, or a telescope, the closer we look the more intricacy and complexity we see.  

Scientific theory proposes that life originated by chance”—i.e. by “undirected, natural causes.”  But some of us are unconvinced that chance events could have created the order and complexity of life.  A logical alternative is to believe that the complexity of creation is the handywork of an intelligent Designer.

Witch-hazel at Secrest Arboretum
(Photo:  Brad Will)

But let’s not be too distracted by the “origins debate.”  Instead, let’s consider just one example of the wonderful complexity found in the world of plants.  The plant in question is a tall, winter-blooming shrub or small tree known as witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana).  Did I say “winter-blooming?”  Yes!  Native witch-hazels generally bloom in late fall; whereas, hybrids may bloom in winter and as late as March.  In his Nature Notebook column, Herb Broda cites Paul Snyder, program coordinator at Secrest Arboretum (The Ohio State University, OARDC-Wooster, Ohio), who confirms that the arboretum is home to at least 50 witch-hazel plants.

Witch-hazel flowers are closely attached to its woody branches.  Each flower has four slender, bright yellow petals that can curl inward for protection during freezing temperatures.  The showy, fragrant, and nectar-filled flowers hint that one or more animal species are being attracted to accomplish pollination.  But what animal pollinator would be sipping nectar from witch-hazel flowers during winter?

For many years, scientists had been observing witch-hazel plants in bloom to determine what animal species were attracted to the flowers.  No success.  Then, two physiological ecologists, Bernd Heinrich and his mentor and colleague, George Bartholomew, took up the task.  Their approach illustrates a presupposition of “good science” and a principle of “good scientific inquiry.” 

First, “good science” presupposes that knowledge of the natural world, or creation, is discoverable.   That is, the world around us reveals itself in objective terms and invites us to come to it in order to discover its secrets.  The resulting principle of “good scientific inquiry” follows logically.   Dr. Bartholomew expressed this principle of inquiry as follows:  Become a careful observer of the plant or animal under investigation and let it “tell [you] what questions to ask.”  Because Bartholomew viewed organisms as “inseparable from their environment,” a corollary to the above principle is, “to know the organism it is necessary to know its environment.”

Bernd Heinrich applied his mentor’s principle to the question:  How are witch-hazel flowers pollinated in the dead of winter?  Finding no pollinators in daylight hours, Heinrich hypothesized that the elusive pollinator is active in the nighttime environment.  Sure enough, he discovered a number of nocturnally active insect visitors to witch-hazel flowers.  These are members of the Noctuidae, a large family of moths with dull forewings and pale or colorful hind wings (Heinrich, B. 1987. J Experimental Biol. 127, 313-332.

Next, Heinrich asked how small, “cold blooded” animals like the noctuid moths can be active in cold temperatures.  Again, by observing and letting the moths “tell [him] what questions to ask,” he discovered that noctuid moths are capable of shivering.  Because intense muscular contractions in animals generate heat, here Heinrich measured tremendous heat production by moth thoracic muscles, a process called thermogenesis.  In order for animals to be metabolically active in winter temperatures, they must either obtain heat from their environment as most invertebrates do by locating themselves in warm and/or sunny spots (ectotherms); or, they must use their own metabolic activity to generate heat within their bodies (endotherms).  The noctuid moths are considered endothermic because they generate heat by shivering. 

By initiating rapid thoracic muscle contractions at freezing temperatures, noctuid moths are able to warm the wing flight muscles of their thorax to temperatures as high 90 to 95^o F.   Heinrich discovered that “maintenance of high thoracic temperatures at low air temperatures depends on (1) the ability to begin shivering at very low muscle temperatures, (2) a thick insulating pile, and (3) counter-current heat exchangers that retard heat flow to the head and to the abdomen, respectively.”  The heat exchangers allow heat to be concentrated in the thorax where it is most needed to promote rapid beating of wings for flight in cold temperatures. 

Flight enables the moths to obtain energy-rich nectar from witch-hazel flowers or from sap issuing from tree wounds.  Food, in turn, serves as fuel for heat generation and other metabolic activity essential for winter survival.  Because food and the opportunities to obtain it are scarce in winter, both food and heat must be conserved.  Conservation of food is accomplished by conserving heat, and body heat is retained by a thick, insulating pile around the moth’s thorax where heat is most needed.  In addition, in addition to the harmonious interaction of these three interdependent bodily systems, the life cycle of noctuid moths is turned around.  The moth larvae hatch and aestivate throughout summer and then the adults emerge to be winter-active.

How such an interdependence of the noctuid moths and the witch-hazel has come to exist is difficult to explain by accumulation of chance mutations and natural selection.  Absence or malfunction of any one physiological or morphological trait or sequence of interdependent parts would jeopardize the whole.  It is one thing to describe complex, interacting systems within an animal and within a plant and how they interact in synchrony between each other. But it is quite another thing to explain how these interactions occur.  Add to this the challenge of explaining how these interacting systems could have come into existence in the first place and you have an even greater challenge for science. 

Perhaps our wonder at the complexity of the interaction of witch-hazels and winter moths ought to bring us back to the approach of George Bartholomew and Bernd Heinrich.  Become a careful observer of the plant or animal under investigation and let it “tell [you] what questions to ask.”  It turns out that Job, an ancient man of faith in God, had already adopted this approach and it caused him to gratefully worship his Creator God (Job 12: 7-10):

“But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you;
      And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.
“Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you;
      And let the fish of the sea declare to you.

And what should we to learn from observing the amazing world?  Shouldn’t we also ask the beasts and let them tell us, or ask the earth and let it teach us?   And then, we may come away in awe as Job did as he humbly concluded:

“Who among all these does not know
      That the hand of the LORD has done this,
In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
      And the breath of all mankind?

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature.  So they have no excuse for not knowing God. – Romans 1: 20 NLT

Does Theology Trump Science in the Pursuit of Truth?

When discussing truth and reality, a question that often arises is, “How do the truth claims of the Bible compare to the claims from philosophy, science, and history?”  Which has the higher authority?

Most Christians believe that God reveals Himself in two major ways-- through the special revelation of Scripture and through the natural revelation of creation.  For instance, some Christian theologians support a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as a major part of biblical evidence for a "Young Earth," estimated in the thousands of years since creation.  Some scientists interpret their geological research on fossils to suggest that these once-living creatures were preserved under relatively rapid catastrophic conditions, not over millions of years.  Thus, scientific interpretation of the natural revelation would seem to corroborate Scripture to support a "Young Earth" position.

Other theologians interpret the Scriptures about creation in a more figurative or allegorical manner.  In their view, the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 refer to long ages of time.  Likewise, some geologists may interpret the fossil-bearing layers of rocks as having been laid down over long periods of time, suggesting an "Old Earth" dated in billions of years.  Evolutionary biologists view the fossil record as traces left behind as life evolved through natural selection acting upon gene mutations.

When there is apparent conflict between special revelation and natural revelation, adherents to the Judeo-Christian faith claim that the authority of special revelation trumps natural revelation.  Meanwhile, many in science claim that the power of human reason through the scientific method can or will reveal the total extent of reality with an superior authority over any revelations from God.  Which side is correct in this age-old confrontation between two views of how humans can know truth and reality?

In a recent article by Jacob Brunton, entitled “Revelation and Responsibility,” appearing on the website For the New Christian Intellectual, the author asserts that both special revelation and natural revelation are equally authoritative because both are God's revelation, equally backed by His authority.  In defense of this claim, Brunton opposes the belief of those who claim  that “all other sources of truth must be submitted to Scripture; that general revelation, at the end of the day, must be submitted to special revelation; that philosophy and science and history must all ultimately “bow the knee” to the Bible.”

Does Jacob Brunton sound heretical?  Maybe so.  But let me invite you to read his article for yourself.  There, Brunton explains that the difference between special revelation and natural revelation is not that one source carries more truth or authority than the other source.  Instead, because the nature of the special and natural revelation of God are different, and both require interpretation, the means of understanding each will be different.  Both inspired Scripture and the created order are authoritative, but the interpretation of Scripture by theologians and the interpretation of the natural world by scientists and philosophers requires reason—and reason enlightened by faith. 

Yes, both theological interpretation of God’s revelation and philosophical-scientific understanding of the natural order are enhanced by the submission of intellectual reasoning to the Spirit of God as teacher and guide (John 16: 13).  From the special revelation, we read in Romans 1: 20-22 that the evidence of God as omniscient Creator can be clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made… so that they are without excuse…  But, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…  When scientist and philosopher deny God and the authority of His Word, the futility of their thinking blinds their vision of creation, leading to distorted “faiths” such as deep ecology, pantheism, and animism.

But, lest theologians deny that misdirected faith and reason can cause equally grievous distortions of the special revelation of Scripture, let them be reminded of the history of biblical heresies that have caused disruptions of local churches and whole denominations; or, to the development of religious cults.  The biblical revelation is inspired by God and carries authority, but, like the humble, honest, and inspired scientist, so must the theologian be dedicated to the humble, honest, and inspired labor of correct exegesis of Scripture.  Both scientists and theologians are stewards of the manifold grace and revelation of God.  Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), the German astronomer who discovered three laws of planetary motion humbly acknowledged to God his stewardship of both God-given faith and reason:

I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands.  See I have now completed the work to which I was called.   In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.

How do we deal with the apparent contradictions between Scripture and science?  Where apparent contradictions occur, such as with regard to interpreting the age of the Earth, humble inquiry and reverence must guide both theologian and philosopher-scientist toward all of God’s revelation.  It follows that the resolution of apparent contradictions or conflicts between special and natural revelation becomes the intellectual responsibility of both the theologian and the philosopher-scientist.  As Brunton states, “rather than submitting one form of God’s revelation to another, we must instead labor to submit our understanding of each to both.”  For a more detailed study of how “submitting of each to both” can be carried out, I refer you to an article by Leonard Brand (below) which contains a helpful integrative model, and which is included here for your consideration.

How About You?
May I encourage you to read Jacon Brunton’s article, “Revelation and Responsibility.” I welcome your insights using the “Comments” link below. 

Further Reading:
Brand, Leonard.  2004.  A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science.  http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_31B/31Bcc_043-080.pdf

Pearcey, N.R. and C.B. Thaxton.  1994.  The Soul of Science:   Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy.  Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL.

Acknowledgement and Dedication:
I have dedicated this article to my colleague and friend, Dr. Allen Monroe, from whom I have learned much about integration of faith and learning; and, from whom I anticipate learning more if he were to offer his critique of what I have written here.

Black History 3: Bible and Biology Erase Racism

Infants and young children often enjoy a blissful existence, oddly enough because of their ignorance.  For example, a boy baby or toddler can have just as much fun at play with a girl and her dolls as with his own toy trucks and tools.  Many a child can as much enjoy the warmth and love of a dedicated stepmother or adoptive parents as that of his or her biological parents.  And, young children can enjoy playing with other young children without being distracted by differences in skin color, hair, or facial contours.  Everything seems to fit well into a child’s simple scheme of things.

Racism is Sin We Learn to Practice
But as children grow older and learn more about the world, their understanding becomes darkened by values that run contrary to both God’s created order and His revealed Truth recorded in the Bible.  When parents or other authorities in the child’s life practice racial discrimination or racism, the child suddenly learns that their black or white friends are somehow inferior, or of lesser value, or are their enemies. 

The fact that racial discrimination and hatred are passed from one generation to the next is illustrated clearly in the movie, 42.  This 2013 film records how Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier to become the first black major league baseball player.  One scene in which Jackie was playing in a game in Cincinnati features a boy seated in the stands next to his racist father.  The boy’s enjoyment of baseball was marred by confusion over his dad’s racial slurs against Robinson.  Soon, out of respect for his dad, the boy began to chime in to express his own racial protests.  How many times has this scenario been repeated over many generations?

What happens in the human heart that transforms an innocent child who had once enjoyed play with other children regardless of ethnicity to a child that is guarded, suspicious, or resentful of another person who is simply “different?”  Racial and ethnic strife is nurtured when experiences feed our natural inclinations toward pride and spiritual rebellion against God who created us.  Meanwhile, God reveals His truth through the Bible, history, and the sciences.  For those who humbly study these sources of truth, understanding brings great reward.  Jesus promised those who will follow Him:  If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (John 8: 31-32).

In Part 1 of this series, “Correct History Brings Light,” we considered how ethnic minorities were instrumental in America’s founding.  By the time of the American Revolution, minority Americans like Crispus Attucks were already part of a “melting pot” of ethnicities that was instrumental in the forging of the United States of America.  Attucks who died in the Boston Massacre is reportedly the first casualty of the Revolution.  Interestingly, Attucks himself was an ethnic “melting pot.”  Although he appeared to be an African American, only Attucks’ father was of African descent, while his mother, Nancy Attucks, was a Native American of the Natick tribe.  A better understanding of how Black history is interwoven culturally and genetically with American history is necessary to evaluate the notion of Reparations which we discussed in Part 2.

A correct understanding of Black history and how it is intertwined with American history, it is necessary that we consider what the science of biology is revealing to us about the human race.  As always, we must try to integrate (i.e. logically and consistently fit into a complete whole) what we discover about humankind through science with what God reveals in the Scriptures of the Bible.

Scripture Says, “One Race”
Racism is a complex issue that I am still learning to understand.  However, since I have placed my faith in Jesus Christ and in the authority of God’s Word, the Bible, I must turn to God and His Word for answers to my questions and pray for wisdom to direct my communication and behavior.  Therefore, we will begin by considering what God has revealed about His creation of humankind, His provision for all people, and His principles intended for our good.

After God had created all except humankind, we read in Genesis 1: 26-27:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
and Genesis 2: 7,
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Jesus Christ was with God at Creation.  “Our likeness” above suggests the Trinity. The Apostle John wrote, All things were made by Him (Jesus Christ); and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1: 3).  Jesus in turn spoke of the creation of Adam and Eve:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

The Apostle Paul taught both Jews and Gentiles in Athens that they were all of one race (emphasis mine):
He (God) made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation…indicating that all of humanity, regardless of “race,” gender, or origin, are offspring of the first man and woman (Acts 17: 26).  Paul adds specific reference to the man, Adam, in 1 Corinthians 15: 45-47:  So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.  However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

Taken together these Scriptures clearly teach us that all humans are descendants of one specially created man, Adam.  So, we all comprise “one race,” not many races.  It follows that just as the “first Adam” is father of the human race, so the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, Adam’s descendent through the line of Abraham [Abraham (Hebrew) = “father of many nations”] is the “father” of all who repent of sin and are born again by faith in Him.  In fact, Paul continued his message to Athens with these words (emphasis mine):  Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man (Jesus Christ) whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17: 30-31).

The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel presents a biblical view of social justice with respect to race relations and ethnicity:
God made all people from one man. Though people often can be distinguished by different ethnicities and nationalities, they are ontological equals before God in both creation and redemption. “Race” is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority. All that is good, honest, just, and beautiful in various ethnic backgrounds and experiences can be celebrated as the fruit of God’s grace. All sinful actions and their results (including evils perpetrated between and upon ethnic groups by others) are to be confessed as sinful, repented of, and repudiated.

As the above statement clearly states, the Bible nowhere supports the notion of racism.  Instead, racism is rooted in Darwinian evolution which claims that pre-human primates evolved into different lines, or "races" leading to present day Caucasian, Negroid, Asian, and other ethnicities.  Because evolution theory assumes that natural selection leads to differences in visible and other traits related to survival, it follows that some "races" must be superior to others.  In, “World History Without HIS Story,” I explain how the Darwinian mindset provided the basis for Nazi Germany’s eugenics experiment involving the Holocaust, the aim of which was to deliberately exterminate Jews and favor the “Aryan race.”  Some educators, both Christian and secular, prefer the use of “ethnic group” or “people group” rather than the term “race.”  Biology and genetics support the Scriptural teaching that humanity is “one race” not many races.

Biology Says, “Race Is Not Rooted in Reality”
An increasing number of scientists believe the term “race” is genetically meaningless.  The American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) has drafted an official “Statement on Race and Racism.” The statement includes the following rejection of “race” as a useful genetic concept:  Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations.

Interestingly, while the AAPA Statement denies that race has its “roots in biological reality,” nevertheless it admits that “racism” exists as a social problem rooted “in policies of discrimination.”  That is, racism can be attributed to “a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination.”  Unfortunately, the AAPA Statement fails to identify the role of Darwinian evolution as a major cause of the emergence of ethnic minority oppression and extermination under Hitler as noted above.

Referring to decades of research by the Human Genome Variation Project, the AAPA Statement notes that a genetic comparison of all humans reveals that the genetic makeup of any two randomly chosen persons in the world will differ by no more than 0.1% (one-tenth of 1 percent) of their genes.  According to Natalie Angier (“Do Races Differ?  Not Really.  Genes Show)”, New York Times, Aug. 22, 2000), only approximately 0.01 percent of the variation among all humans involves genes commonly associated with “race-distinguishing” traits like skin color.  D. J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, et al. publishing in the journal, Genetics (176: 351–359  May, 2007), concluded, “…most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them.”  Rob DeSalle and Ian Tattersall, both at the American Museum of Natural History, conclude, “race is a totally inadequate way of characterizing diverse humankind or even of helping understand humanity’s glorious variety.”

We began by reflecting on the bliss enjoyed by the baby or toddler who can enjoy being at play with another child regardless of outward differences in appearance.  Meanwhile, because of human spiritual depravity, adults worldwide behave like spoiled children who learn to reject and abuse others who look or act differently.   When will we realize the sin of racism?  In so doing, we defy God’s creative purposes by wrongly dividing human beings who differ by only a few genes that determine outward appearance?  Although racism is real and damaging on a cultural level, there is not enough genetic difference to consider it real biologically.  How tragic!  

The challenge for Christ-followers is to understand the following:
a)  What the Scriptures teach about the origin of all humans from the ”first Adam” (Genesis 1-2)
b)  The reason why we are spiritually depraved (Genesis 3; Romans 1-2)
c)  Why God sent His only Son as the “second Adam” (1 Corinthians 15: 45)
d)  Our need to repent and receive Christ's free Gift of salvation and restoration (Acts 17: 30-31)
For more information on how you can receive the Gift of Salvation, CLICK HERE for "Steps to Peace with God."

Those who come to Christ by faith can fully celebrate human ethnic diversity.  That means celebrating the way in which God and "HIStory" has melted ethnic diversity for the benefit of many nations, America included.  And best of all, Christ-followers can assist in the harvest of souls of every ethnicity, all of whom God loves and invites to live with Him throughout eternity if they claim His righteousness by faith in the blood of Christ.

Climate Change in Context – 1. Getting the “Atmosphere” Right

This weekend, youth from 150 countries were so concerned about the global threat of climate change that they left their classrooms and took to the streets to urge world leaders to act.  As a science educator, I encouraged student involvement in learning.  So, I commend these students for their initiative, but I wonder if they are knowledgeable enough to preach to adults, many of whom lack consensus on whether or how much humans are responsible for climate change.

I am often asked, “Do you believe in ‘climate change?’” or, “Do you think humans can stop climate change?” or, “What do you think about “climate change?” 

The first two questions are easy.  My answers are, “Yes” and “No,” respectively.  Yes, according to science, climate change has been occurring for as far back as we have records or can extrapolate.  Geologic evidence suggests quite a few sudden, major, catastrophic changes in both the atmosphere and landscape of Earth—the kind of catastrophic events that can bury and preserve animals and plants within rocks or polar ice.  Because climate change has been occurring since long before human impacts on the Earth were significant, it is doubtful that we can stop climate change now.  If we could, what climatic conditions would we prefer for each latitude and biome?  Would we eliminate deserts?  Expand rain forests?

My answer to the third question, “I don’t always know what to think,” reflects my attempt to approach scientific issues with humility and healthy skepticism.  Therefore, I want to use this first of a series of articles on “Climate Change in Context” to emphasize the importance of two virtues that seem necessary in our discussion of global scale issues like climate change-- civility and humility.  If we want to make any headway on climate change or any other issue, there must be an “atmosphere” of civility and humility.

We can easily fill the atmosphere of our discussions with “hot air” and accomplish little else when we lack civility. Polite communication must underly every discussion, and this means both listening and speaking politely with one another.  The Apostle James wrote, Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry (James 1:19).  Perfect advice, isn’t it?  However, notice in the verses just before v. 19, James urges readers to humble themselves, recognize their proneness toward pride and selfishness, and their need to seek wisdom that comes from a gracious God.

David Rupert’s article in Patheos entitled “What the Bible Says about Civility” has numerous Scriptures encouraging civility through a spirit of humility, kindness, and self-control.  These are fruit of the indwelling Spirit of God (Galatians 5: 22-23) which ought to enable Christ-followers to be examples and to be winsome contributors to discussions of controversial issues (1 Peter 3: 15).

Rupert quotes Jim Brown, author of Ending our Uncivil War: A Path to Political Recovery and Spiritual Renewal who said,

We’re in a Binary Age, where nuance is rare, complexity is verboten and sharp political battle lines are drawn. Churchgoers on both sides of our national mess are reluctant to turn a cheek, fine with abandoning the least of our brothers or condemning anyone who is wealthy, and adamantly opposed to loving their enemy. In fact, some want blood. They want Barabbas.

Those who purpose to engage in conversation, debate, and social media messaging with civility and humility can create an atmosphere in which contention can give way to understanding of one another’s differing motives and perspectives.   Polite humility is essential when discussing the nuances of complex scientific data and differing interpretations.  For example, read the following pairs of “climate change claims” and consider how you might participate in polite dialog in an effort to understand them:

Notice that neither claim denies that increased global temperatures have been measured..  But the two claims disagree as to which is the cause and which is the effect.  If increasing global CO₂ is the result and not the cause of changes in global temperatures, then climate science needs to objectively tell us like it is lest our policy proposals miss the mark.  As we will see later, Allan M.R. MacRae supports Scientific Claim #2 in “CO₂, Global Warming, Climate, and Energy.”

Humility among scientists and reviewers of research manuscripts is essential if we are to avoid ethics violations.  I have written in “The Conscience of Science” of the many incidents in which scientists reportedly falsify data, suppress or hide contradictory results, or refuse to review research that may favor an opposing claim.  So, it is important that our electorate be educated not only in the science of global ecology and climate science, but that we learn to be discerning of the political motivations and forces that take opposing sides in the debate about climate change. 

First, are policies being grounded on the basis of “good science” and correct conclusions about climate trends?  Second, are proposed solutions properly targeted to solve the environmental problem, or are they aimed instead at simply justifying the concentration of more power in Washington, DC as part of a social experiment? 

Clearly, we can see that “climate change” has a context—one that demands of all Americans our best efforts based on high moral and ethical standards of conduct in both the sciences and in politics.  For this, I will suggest that we need fewer street marches and more classrooms that teach at least the historical importance of the foundation provided by our Judeo-Christian heritage.

In particular, a good atmosphere for dealing with climate change will demand that we understand and apply the biblical narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 which we will consider in Part 2.  We can only wonder sadly as how many of the estimated 4 million people who marched this weekend for climate change have any knowledge or understanding of how important Judeo-Christian ethics have been to the foundation of human civilization. 

As I watched a Swedish schoolgirl, Greta Thunberg, likely not familiar with the biblical narrative, spawn a global movement, I am reminded to exercise humility and restraint lest I jump to conclusions about her qualifications to lead.  In this regard, I conclude with another quote from Jim Brown by David Rupert, as a prescription that may go far toward improving the “atmosphere” of our classrooms, conference rooms, and even the street marches for climate change:

The path to political recovery and spiritual renewal requires work.  We can turn the cheek, but not be weak.  We can lift up the least among us, as uncorrupted religions teach, while we respect and improve our laws.  We can love our enemies deeply – “agape,” as the Greeks, Christ, and Dr. King encouraged.

But David Rupert wonders, “Are we too far gone?”

The Conscience of Science: Part 2 Do Museums Make Us Muse?

"Overall, the nation has a big problem,” says Dr. Brian Alters, president of the National Center for Science Education.  Dr. Alters is concerned that approximately 50% of Americans polled still believe evolution does not occur.  What’s more, nearly half of college students reject evolution or consider it “just a theory.”  These data stun many other evolutionary biologists who have invested their lives for decades in classroom teaching, curriculum revision, and teacher training built upon a naturalistic evolution foundation.  Yet they seem to have failed to convince students and their teachers that life on Earth originated and evolved as a result of time, gene mutations, and natural selection over billions of years.

A museum display of the supposed evolution of humans.

How could it be so difficult to convince science teachers and their students to believe what seems logical to most scientists?  Could it be that many students (and science teachers) are turned off by a classroom that pressures them to change their whole outlook on human origin?  This notion is plausible considering that most students of science have had at least one teacher who inspired them by presenting science as an invitation to inquiry and wonder about the natural world.  Would such students sense something unnatural about a science classroom that aims to “indoctrinate” learners into a naturalistic, evolution way of viewing the world?  Could it be that indoctrination in science is “poison” to both good educational pedagogy and the process of science itself?

After 50 years in science education and research, I am persuaded that a major purpose of what I call good science is to invite students to observe God’s creation, experience wonder in response to its grandeur, think critically as they formulate important scientific questions about the natural world, and participate as researchers in a logical method of scientific inquiry to find answers to the questions.   In this second part of my series on “The Conscience of Science,” we will consider the role of natural history museums in promoting scientific understanding and the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world.  Specifically, we’ll ask, “Do natural history museums motivate visitors to join in the “process of science” by welcoming critical analyses of what are believed to be valid theories of science while inviting participation in the discovery of what is not known?”  In other words, “Do museums cause visitors to muse—i.e. to wonder, to ponder, or to think reflectively?” Or, “Are museums more like dark, musty temples filled with images underwritten with captions that insult visitors by declaring notions about human origins which they should accept without questioning?”

I still remember my first visit as a junior higher to a natural history museum, the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.  When I saw the reconstructions of prehistoric animals, fossils, and geologic timelines, I stood in awe of the vast scientific knowledge of the natural world.  Of course, I didn’t question the authority of science to make judgments about the fossil record, or the age of the Earth, or how the first humans originated.  After all, who was I as a young student of science and history to question the scientific claims etched in stone within this giant “temple of knowledge?”

Wikipedia defines museum as is “an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of artistic, cultural, historical, or scientific importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.”  Natural history museums that aim to accomplish these functions can elicit wonder about how life on Earth originated and diversified. However, most museums of natural history present a view of life’s origin that assumes an ancient Earth and a Darwinian timeline of human evolution from ape-like ancestors.  But, how do museums communicate this message?

Do similar anatomy and DNA mean a common ancestor?

The arrangement of displays of fossils and reconstructions of plants and animals in most museums are situated in a configuration that teaches a Darwinian interpretation of life’s origin and diversification.  However, the extent to which these museum presentations line up with good science varies greatly from museum to museum.  A recent article by Marvin Olasky in WORLD Magazine, entitled “A Tale of Two Museums,” compares two national museums with respect to how they convey what is known about life’s origin.

Dr. Olasky compared the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC (NMNH, also called “the Smithsonian”) with the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City.   According to AECOM and the Themed Entertainment Association’s annual report on the world's most visited attractions, the NMNH and the AMNH are ranked 3^rd and 12^th among the world’s most visited museums.  These two museums boast a combined annual attendance by over 12 million visitors.  The popularity of such museums with their expansive collections, imposing displays, and scientific-philosophical storyline enables them to convey an authoritative if not dogmatic message about the origin of life to their visitors, especially to impressionable children somewhat like I was as a junior higher.

I encourage you to read the Olasky article referenced above.  You can also take a virtual tour of AMNH. Here, I will highlight examples from the Olasky article to illustrate how the two museums differ in the way in which they explain life’s origin through historical science.  Historical science aims to understand the significance of an object or process as affected by one event or a series of past events called "causal histories."  Usually, causal histories must be reconstructed from inferences.  The approach of historical science resembles forensic science because in both sciences, no one was there to observe the causal events—i.e. what caused the fossils.  Or, in forensics, who committed the crime?

Evolutionary view of human origins at the Smithsonian Museum

Olasky recounts how the Smithsonian welcomes visitors to travel “Evolution Trail” of the museum which leads from simple aquatic forms of life all the way “up” to the “Mammal Family Reunion.” Here visitors are invited to “come meet your relatives” in the “Human Family Tree.”  Olasky expresses the theme of the Smithsonian as follows:

Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.  There is no scientific controversy about whether evolution occurred or whether it explains the history of life on earth.

Olasky notes correctly that this sweeping claim is false.  On the contrary, more than 800 Ph.D. scientists have signed onto the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (see www.DissentfromDarwin.org).  Olasky notes that even the famed evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr, acknowledged “a large, ‘unbridged gap’ between humanlike species in the fossil record and our supposed apelike australopithecine ancestors.” Although he died in a decade ago, Mayr’s somewhat tentative and skeptical tone is reflected in museum captions like the following:

Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.

Although this statement at the Smithsonian admits to the absence of “transitional fossil forms,” the museum dismisses the fact that the “construction of a historical narrative” (i.e filling missing gaps) involves much of what Olasky rightly terms “speculation and storytelling.”  Filling gaps with little or no fossil evidence has given historical science, and the natural sciences in general, a bad name. 

Here, we should note that historical science is also involved in the risky business of predicting future global climate trends by piecing together the past history of global climate and constructing models that project future climate trends.  Because of the uncertainty and risk involved in reconstructing the past and predicting future trends, the claims of historical science about both evolution and global climate trends must be subjected to ongoing scientific testing.

In view of the gaps and uncertainties that exist in the fossil record, how can natural history museums serve their visitors in a manner that is consistent with good science? Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language defines science as “Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.”  Recall that by using the term, good science, I want to emphasize the “quality” of the science.  In our context of “musing about museums” and the message they convey about the origin of life, readers of Olasky’s article will find that the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City offers its visitors at least two marks of good science as follows:

1) Good science affirms that well accepted science knowledge is durable, but must always be open to revision and even rejection when new evidence consistently emerges.  The AMNH supports good science, when it admits the need to correct errors in prior scientific claims.  For example, according to Olasky, the AMNH admits that Pterosaurs (“flying reptiles”), once thought to be mammals related to bats, are now believed to be archosaurs, more closely aligned with crocodiles.  The “take home message” from this humble admission is that science is a process of ongoing inquiry, subject to error, and in need of occasional correction.   As such, good science is not a stale and boring activity that smells like a preserved museum specimen, but rather an invitation to wonder and excitement in pursuit of truth about the natural world.

"Good Science" caption at National Museum of Natural History

2) Good science acknowledges that certain questions about the natural world may be difficult or impossible to answer.  Unfortunately, many brilliant, motivated scientists find it difficult to admit that there are limits to what we can know about prehistoric life forms.  Refreshingly, Olasky found some evidence that the AMNH admits to the limits of science.  For example, one statement admits,

We cannot be sure how pachycephalosaurs used their skull caps, because theories about the behavior of extinct animals cannot be tested. 

Commendably, in regard to whether carnosaurs were hunters or scavengers, another AMNH caption states that, because of

…fossil bones that are often incomplete, or that have been distorted… We may never have all the evidence needed to support these ideas.

There you have it.  It seems clear that Dr. Olasky’s “A Tale of Two Museums” presents two visions of the science of human origins as presented in major museums of natural history.   We have learned that a museum can represent the spirit and approach of good science.  Or, it can present a distorted and dogmatic version of science through overstated conclusions that lack solid support from the fossil record.  Instead of becoming more convinced of the support for Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution of life, visitors may leave with a sense that they have been manipulated or insulted.  Most sadly, such approaches diminish the wonder of science as an invitation to inquiry about the natural world, or creation.

In my next article on “The Conscience of Science” we will consider in more detail the difference between good science and what I will call “incredible science” with respect to how the science addresses evidences for human origin.  Hopefully, we can identify specific reasons why about half of Americans surveyed have persisted in rejecting the claim that humans evolved from non-human primates and ultimately, from ancient life forms.