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

Human Sexuality: A Nexus of Scripture, Science, and Sociology

Surrendering Standards for Sexuality

During my boyhood in the 1950’s, human sexuality was very much on people’s minds but it was not openly discussed in most homes, churches, and schools.  Although sex was a “hush-hush” topic in our farm home, I am thankful for parents who modeled gender differences and helped guide me toward manhood and to faith in God. 

Meanwhile, all around us, the so-called “sexual revolution” was emerging while the intactness and values of many American families were deteriorating.  Many fathers and mothers in post-war America became consumed with their dreams of the good life.  Many chose paths that led them away from honoring God and loving their spouses, children, and families.  Churches that once were an integral part of family and community life also began to compromise the Gospel message.  Divorce and adolescent rebellion became more and more common.

Some churches watered down the Gospel message of salvation by faith in the blood of Christ, God’s provision for redeeming fallen man.  Like ships without an anchor, they began to drift in the current of the morally deteriorating culture.  Other churches fired up their message about the “wages of sin” but failed to welcome sinners with the love and mercy shown by Jesus who welcomed sinners.  Consequently, many conservative, fundamentalist churches fumbled their chances to attract the spiritually lost who were left alone, groping in the dark to find love and purpose.  Ignored and rejected, many young Americans rejected God and set out to find a “love” apart from His plan.

Fast forward to the present.  We can now see the harvest of the seeds sown in the 1960’s-1970’s.  What started as a minority counterculture of rebellion against spiritual and social norms has become a dominant force that threatens to upend the moral foundation of America.  The movement has been given legitimacy by calls for “individual rights” which accompany a “liberal” education and persuasive messages from Hollywood and the main stream media.  As a result, our culture is drowning in moral confusion while being caught up in angry debates over God’s gifts of marriage, family, and human sexuality.

Ignoring or Suppressing the Science of Sexuality
Our understanding of human sexuality is being distorted not only by misguided social influences but also by those who publish misleading scientific reports or who suppress valid findings from the scientific community.  A lack of “good science” and “good social science”  have been misleading our culture ever since the now-discredited Kinsey Report on human sexuality.  In 1954, leading statisticians issued for the American Statistical Association a critique of Kinsey's 1948 report, stating that “conclusions drawn from data presented in the book are often stated by much too bold and confident a manner…[and] the writing in the book falls below the level of good scientific writing.”

More recently, neuroscientists and sex researchers like Dr. Debra Soh are providing mounting scientific evidence that sex differences between men and women are biologically based and not socially influenced.  In a podcast interview with Ben Domenech on the Federalist Radio Hour, Dr. Soh explains that gender differences are real, and are caused by different levels of the hormone testosterone between developing boy and girl babies.  According to Dr. Soh, contrary to politically correct views, there is no scientific evidence that gender is a social construct such that each individual can therefore be free to choose their gender. 

Dr. Soh laments the fact that left-based thinking gives the false impression that men and women should think the same in regard to how and why they engage in sexual relationships and how they respond when relationships go bad.  False, politically correct notions that men and women are not different causes much confusion among women who are left wondering why they do not feel the same as men in judging the quality of sexual relationships and in how they feel compared to men when relationships go bad.  Gender misconceptions combined with the continuing “hush-hush” attitudes about sex that tend to prevent good communication between partners is an ongoing threat to developing strong monogamous relationships.

Given the fact that our moral standards have been eroding; and, that left-leaning, agenda-driven politics is denying the science of human sexuality, it is no wonder that gender identity has become so confusing that it requires a glossary of terms to help us determine who we are sexually.  If Dr. Soh and the large body of scientific research to which she refers is correct, determining our gender ought to be as simple and straightforward as simply being observant during diaper changes, and then “training up our children in the way they should go.” (Proverbs 22: 6). 

I do not mean to oversimplify here.  As Dr. Soh admits, there are differences in degrees of maleness and femaleness among members of each gender.  Dispositions toward increased maleness and femaleness can arise, respectively, in males who developed under lower prenatal levels of testosterone, and in females with higher prenatal levels.  Then, whereas gender is determined by a person’s prenatal neurophysiological development as noted above, I believe variations in hormonal levels within-gender can predispose a boy or girl to respond by developing secondary traits of the opposite sex depending on parental and other social influences.  We’ll return to this point.

Speaking into the New “Hush-Hush” about Sexuality
Although a majority of people are concerned about sexuality and pursuing sexual fulfillment, anyone who dares to speak up about what God’s Word says about sexuality risks being called a hateful bigot.  Thus, western culture has transitioned from a “hush-hush” about human sexuality in the 1950’s and 1960’s to a new form of “hush-hush.” The current “hush-hush” is given to anyone who wishes to address what God’s revelation in Scripture has to say about our sexuality.  How then can a Christ-follower keep his or her call to be “salt and light” in a world that largely rejects the authority of God and His revealed Word?

Given the current climate of moral relativism, you may be asking, “What right does any person have to question the gender preferences and sexual behavior of anyone else?”  Indeed, many people regardless of sexual orientation do not acknowledge the existence of God or the authority of the Bible.  Others may respect the authority of Scripture but question whether God views homosexual behavior as being worthy of eternal judgment in Hell.  Still others argue that Jesus offers love, mercy, and forgiveness of sinners and did not condemn homosexual behavior.  But there is a clear message in the Scriptures--God does exist, His design for sexuality is objectively defined in the Bible, He remains a righteous judge with whom all of us must give account, and He remains ready to forgive and redeem all repentant sinners.
 
If we acknowledge God’s authority revealed in the Bible, then we must accept that God has called us as Christ-followers to love our neighbor and to share His gift of love in the Person of Jesus Christ.  In His “Great Commission,” recorded in Matthew 28: 18, Jesus said, All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples… Jesus calls His disciples to “make disciples”—i.e. make more teachable followers who live by my example and are empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, if Christ-followers are being obedient to Christ’s commission, it is our responsibility to express our faith in word and in deed.

But there are right and wrong ways to share God’s message.  The Apostle Peter (apostle = “one who is sent”) teaches us the manner in which we ought to approach others to witness of God’s love and purposes for mankind.  He wrote (emphasis mine), But sanctify the Lord God (i.e. set apart and honor God as holy) in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with gentleness and reverence… (1 Peter 3: 15).  According to Peter, our lives must first be a reflection of the humility and love of Jesus Christ as described in the Gospel accounts.  Second, we must be ready to speak the truth as God’s Spirit gives us the opportunities to answer or respond to questions.  And, third, our approach to those who need to hear God’s truth must be with gentleness and respect for both God and our neighbor.

Returning specifically to the matter of sexuality, sexual preference, and sexual behavior, Christ-followers must be able to respectfully explain God’s plan and purpose for sex in the context of marriage as being between a man and a woman.  In response to a question about God’s view of divorce, Jesus answered as recorded in Matthew 19: 4-6 by quoting from the Old Testament (Genesis 1: 27 and 2: 24):  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’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

Christ followers must also be able to answer the claim that, although the Bible does condemn sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage (e.g. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11) Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.  If Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality, how can Christians claim that God will judge homosexuals?  Dr. Robert Jeffress provides an excellent response to this claim in his short article, “Did Jesus Condemn Homosexuality?”

Conclusion and Recommended Resources
Truly, today’s culture is saturated with sex, erotic imaging, sexual innuendo, and all the preoccupation, confusion, and frustration that results in lives lived apart from God’s plan and purpose for sexuality.  It also follows that a sex-saturated culture can make Christ-followers forget that God sent His Son to redeem humans from all kinds of sins, not only sex outside of the biblical marriage bond, but also such sins as lying, stealing, gossiping, murdering, coveting, etc. (see 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; Galatians 5: 19-21).  As David wrote in Psalm 51: 5, every one of us were born into this world as sinners.  As fallen offspring of Adam, we are prone to commit any or all of the sins listed above that are outside of the moral bounds established by a loving Creator in His Word.  Because this article focuses on how Christ-followers ought to approach our neighbor when he or she is caught in immoral sexual behavior, I will conclude by reference to two excellent resources.

Allen Atzbi, General Manager at Living Waters, has written an online article, “Coming Out of the Closet on Homosexuality.”  This article provides an excellent resource for individuals and for group discussion.  It is also an excellent preparation for viewing the movie, Audacity, written and produced by evangelist Ray Comfort.  This free online movie provides good insights on homosexuality and good examples of how Christ-followers can address this sensitive issue as loving ambassadors with an informed, gentle, and respectful approach to anyone in need of Christ’s love and forgiveness.   Audacity is also a good resource for group discussion.  The movie subtitle is “Love Can’t Stay Silent.”  I’m thankful that God’s love reached me-- because He couldn’t “stay silent.”

How About You?
1.   What would you do if you saw a same-sex couple approaching a malfunctioning elevator in a high-rise building, knowing that if they step on the elevator, they will plunge to certain death?  Do you have a right to warn them?   Should they feel offended if you approached them with the warning?  The article, “Coming Out of the Closet on Homosexuality” and the movie Audacity uses this analogy and others to emphasize the obligation we have to minister to those around us.

2.  What must a Christ-follower do to earn the right to approach a person or couple who is openly rejecting God’s moral standards?  Watch Audacity and see what one person chose to do and how his action opened the way for him to share his faith.

3.  I welcome your comments, questions and corrections where I may be misrepresenting the issues surrounding human sexuality and the role of Scripture, science, and social science in shaping a proper response to this important issue.