DNA and the Virgin Birth

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Guy_Coe

There is an analogy to all of this which just as crucially hinges on a “random event” versus an “intelligently designed and puropsefully implemented” genetic change – namely, the birth of the male child Jesus to his female mother Mary, “parthenogenetically” ( i.e., without male insemination). I’d propose when we get this far down in the weeds, it totally begs credulity to see the incarnation as a process of common descent alone. Perspectivally, this event can be interpreted in any number of ways, but for Christians, “chance alone” CANNOT be the explanation. Just sayin’! Note: Jesus’ sex chromosomes had to be “miraculously” (purposefully) transformed in order for him to have been born male to a young woman who’d had “no relations with any man.” The incarnation was not the result of an accident of physics/genetics. Physicist Frank Tipler goes into an analysis of the physical changes necessary, while noting their extreme mathematical unlikelihood, in his book “The Physics of Christianity,” (2007) pp. 166-175, and in other places throughout the book. I offer this as a counter to what appears to be an intractable mindset in some of us here.

@Guy_Coe

Why would you write this kind of analysis when the @swamidass scenarios can specifically include both kinds of activity:

God creating pre-Adam “adams” via evolution, and de novo creation of Adam & Eve?

Even if there was general agreement that a virgin birth must be a non-natural event, the openness of the @swamidass scenarios to activities of either category should have resolved any difficulty for you.

This is the whole point of these discussions: Evolutionists who are Christians find too much evidence for Evolution to ignore, and Creationists find too much Biblical investment in the “special creation” of Adam and Eve to ignore: so both are meshed together in ways that should not offend the other party.