I knew it would happen. Eventually. Frankly, I’m surprised it took so long.
Remember that female shark that got herself pregnant without use of a male shark a few months ago?
National Geographic reported:
A female blacktip shark in Virginia fertilized her own egg without mating with a male shark, new DNA evidence shows.
This is the second time scientists have used DNA testing to verify shark parthenogenesis—the process that allows females of some species to produce offspring without sperm.
Now, I remember reading this story at the time and thinking that somehow this will be used to prove or disprove something about Jesus.
Well, last night it happened. In an email exchange with a friend that got forwarded to me, a long and winding conversation that started with making fun of Boston College but ended up questioning my friend’s Christianity.
And then this from the atheist:
“Did you know that mammals have been proven to have “virgin births.” A shark recently was pregnant and there were no male sharks around. So since this is a naturally occurring phenomenon, it really takes the wind out of your sails over the whole ‘Virgin birth claim.'”
My friend responded:
“Funny. But isn’t this the same guy that said he didn’t believe in the virgin birth anyway or that Jesus even existed at all?”
And the response:
“I do now. Now that science has proved it. That’s the difference between me and you.”
I’m not going to get involved other than telling my friend that he should probably let his friend know that sharks are not mammals.
But the argument itself isn’t even worth arguing about but I was just happy to finally encounter the transformation of the argument against Jesus’ conception from “it can never happen” to “it happens all the time” without even glancing consideration of the world of possibility between.
May 30, 2009 at 4:12 pm
On the bright side… if it takes a shark getting pregnant without a male to get this atheist to start believing in the virgin birth and/or Jesus… great! God has a funny way of reaching people! 🙂
May 30, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Actually, in the old days the bee was considered “proof” of the possibility of immaculate conaeption… which is why you often see bees and bee hives in churches.
May 30, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Of course, naturally occurring parthenogenesis can never result in the birth of a male (in species where the male has two different sex chromosomes), seeing as there is no way the female could produce a Y chromosome on her own. If natural human parthenogenesis were possible, the offspring could only be female.
Next from the historical Jesus movement: We now accept the virgin birth, but with one caveat- due to the scientific evidence we must conclude that Jesus was a woman.
May 30, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Look at the brains on Mike S.
May 30, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Welcome to the party of “science.”
May 30, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“Actually, in the old days the bee was considered “proof” of the possibility of immaculate conaeption… which is why you often see bees and bee hives in churches.”
The immaculate conception refers to Mary being conceived without the stain of original sin…
May 30, 2009 at 7:15 pm
The real miracle of Jesus’ birth was not that Mary was a virgin, but that an angel told her about her child ahead of time. She knew beforehand, that’s what proves God was at work.
Of course virgin births happen naturally, just look at all the legends and histories of various peoples far and near. They all tell of babies coming from virgins. I think science is bolstering our case rather than undermining it.
I can’t wait until somebody “discovers” the existence of incorporeal nonorganic aspacial subspace neural networks…maybe then you’re science friend will believe in angels. 😉
May 30, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“Of course, naturally occurring parthenogenesis can never result in the birth of a male (in species where the male has two different sex chromosomes), seeing as there is no way the female could produce a Y chromosome on her own. If natural human parthenogenesis were possible, the offspring could only be female.”
Actually no, there can be males with two X chromosomes, and a small number of them are fertile. If this is how Jesus chose to incarnate, he would have within himself the nature of both sexes, and thus the fulness of human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
May 30, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Of course virgin births happen naturally, just look at all the legends and histories of various peoples far and nearDr Lacrimosus, are you sure there are such legends? Can you point us to one? I have never heard of one.
May 30, 2009 at 10:40 pm
From Dr. Lacrimosus’s wikipedia link:
So-called XX males have two X chromosomes; thus they are genetically female but otherwise appear to be male.So XX ‘males’ aren’t male at all – they just have some male appearances. Jesus wouldn’t have been the ‘Son’ of Man, in that case, would He?
May 30, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I read a book last year by a physicist who stated that Jesus was one of these extremely rare “virgin births” and that genetically as a result he would have smaller testes than normal.
You can guess that after that bit I put away that book sent to me for review.
May 30, 2009 at 11:40 pm
lol, yes. Agreed curt jester.
You do realize my postings were sarcastic, right?
May 30, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Re: Dr:
You sure the materialists wouldn’t just believe in those “incorporeal nonorganic aspacial subspace neural network-based entities” rather than angels simply because it takes longer to say than “angels” or “devils”, therefore it must be scientific (even if materialism then eats itself)?
May 31, 2009 at 12:23 am
Haha! Good point Steven.
May 31, 2009 at 12:27 am
Materialism ate itself a long time ago. The only difference between it an traditional views of the world lies in semantics. Renaming spirit or attributing spiritual properties to matter (we Thomists used to call them “forms”) does not eliminate spirit. A rose is still a rose by any other name.
June 1, 2009 at 1:57 am
Re; Dr.
I always thought Materialism ate itself when it proposed the multiverse as a duck-out for design in the cosmos. I mean, the invocation of something beyond the cosmos to defend the notion that there is nothing besides stuff in the cosmos.
Makes you wonder if they listen to themselves?