On my commute to work, I rotate between listening to sermons, audio books, and podcasts. This particular morning, I was listening to a podcast about a particular species of hummingbirds. I listened to it three times in a row, and laughed with joy on the first listen, laughed with contempt on the second, and laughed with thanksgiving on the third. Here's the transcript:
Here’s a story about a hummingbird: the Purple-throated Carib.
It lives on many of the Antillean Islands in the Caribbean, and the male and female birds have differently shaped bills. The female’s is long and deeply curved. The male’s is shorter and straighter. And this one species of bird has a specialized relationship with two different species of flowering Heliconia plants.
One plant has a blossom that has a long, curved corolla — an excellent fit for the bill of the female Purple-throated Carib. The second plant has a flower that’s an excellent fit for the male bird. It delivers a larger dose of nectar, which the male needs because it’s 25% bigger than the female. The birds help pollinate the flowers, so the relationship has a payoff for the Heliconia, too.
This is an example of co-evolution, where different species evolve in conjunction with each other, continually matching each other’s changing adaptations. When research documenting it was published in 2003, one scientist remarked that this Carib-Heliconia relationship was the most convincing evidence for co-evolution that he’d ever seen. “The only thing better,” he said, “would be if I could live for a million years and watch it actually happen.”Here is a great example of how what you believe and your founding principles color how you see the world and interpret what it is you are seeing. Neutrality is a myth, no one comes to the table with a blank slate, perfectly neutral and open minded. The Scientist can clearly see how both the birds and the flowers adapt themselves by Evolution's mighty hand to suite one another in the tropical ecosystem. But I wonder, where did that information come from? How does he know this is what happened? He sees conjunction evolution when he considers the birds partly because he believed it before he started looking.
When I see the birds, I consider their Maker. I glace over and consider the flowers and their Maker. I see design, not adaptation. I see Wisdom, not chance. I see complementary purpose, not survival of the fittest.
We are both looking at the same evidence and both have taken our presuppositions and come to wildly different explanations. What he sees as the most convincing evidence for co-evolution to me is most convincing evidence that God is awesome in his creative purpose.
The researcher speaks more truth than he knows when he wished he could live millions of years to watch it happen. In other words, no one has actually witnessed this doctrine and so it can't be tested or proven, it has to be taken by faith. He wishes he could observe it, but he can't live that long, but has faith that if he could live that long, he would be able to see it. He must take his doctrine by faith. He looks through the research binoculars and sees a world shaped by evolution because he picked up the evolution glasses. His presuppositions color his world.
I come to the birding binoculars with presuppositions too. I'm not neutral either and don't pretend to be. I presuppose that God exists and has revealed Himself in His Word and that we what can know, we know because God has revealed it and Jesus has rose from the dead. I look at the world through those lenses. I see the world through the glasses of the glory of Christ. I believe in the creation account by faith too, but not a blind faith. My faith is in the written testimony of the Bible and I believe what that book says. You may dismiss that argument because I'm taking the word of guys who wore robes and lived thousands of years ago. But your assertion on taking the word of men that wear lab coats and live in an age where Donald Trump may be president and Facebook memes constitute a compelling argument doesn't give me much confidence in modern thought over the Word of God that has and does endure.
Here is the kicker. You have to decided who you are going to believe. You can say that you believe in science, but what vintage? I hear that 1859 is a good year for Science, but it can be a little bitter in light of current research. Do you believe in what Science tells you today? What if Science tells you you are wrong tomorrow? How many elementary school kids come home and preach to their parents how they were wrong about what they learned when they were in school? What if you avoid eating eggs for most of your life because Science tells you it will give you a heart attack. But then, you find out that eggs might be beneficial in preventing heart attack? Oops.
Just admit it, we all have our presuppositions. What is your world colored by? Your experiences? Your emotions? Your preferences? Is that stable enough a foundation to anchor your soul? Especially since all those things are subjective and change daily.
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment