A Question for TEs (Theistic Evolutionists)

_{May 13, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Assuming we’re dealing with ‘card-carrying’ Christians, let me pose this question to you: As a Christian, you believe in the Virgin Birth: i.e., that the Blessed Mother of Jesus ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ If this is what you believe, then, knowing as we do that Mary, a woman, would have had ordinary ova with only ‘half’ of the normal genetic information, how did the ‘other half’ come about? That is, ‘where,’ and ‘how,’ did this come about?

I’ll be interested in your answers.

Comments

Barb, the difference between myself and PaV is that I found your jokes about atheists funny and not offensive. My point still stands. People, regardless of their belief (or lack of belief) should lighten up. But I think that your statement that atheists make fun of Christians far more than Christians make fun of atheists is merely a matter of perspective, not fact. This entire web site is riddled with articles and comments ridiculing atheists and "evolutionists". As are many other religiously based sites. But, to be fair, the reverse is also observed on atheist sites.Acartia_bogart_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

PaV:
IMO, this argument crumbles when it comes to the Virgin Birth since it is reasonable to assume that entire chromosomes need to be supplied–or else Jesus is not the “Son of God”, but purely the “Son of Mary”, the Virgin who gave birth.
Exactly. The most important aspect of Jesus is that he was not just another human, but the Son of God, God made Flesh.Eric Anderson_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

PaV:
The TE position is that evolution was guided by God, but that to a very limited degree, if not completely so, there was never any direct intervention by God in genomic development, and that genomic development results rather from the guided use of the genome’s existing and inherent mechanisms (NGE of Shapiro, e.g.).
This is where I have to disagree with you. It is young earth creationism and old earth creationism (progressive creationism) that have God acting at some point in the past and then leaving it up to the machines after that. If ID is not a mechanical theory, and both Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism are, then they are incompatible with ID, in spite of all the "big tent" claims. There is a fundamental philosophical difference (not to mention hermeneutical and theological). I don't understand why a theistic evolutionist has to deny miracles. For anyone who has been born again, is there a naturalistic/materialistic/scientific/mechanistic explanation?Mung_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

tjguy:
Understand the point of the passage before making a silly point.
Does this mean you're retracting your silly claim?
He [Jesus] had to be made like His brothers in every way in order to redeem them from sin.
Mung_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

phoodoo: I think your “anti-joke” requirement is as detrimental to the search for honest knowledge, as are the Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne censorship views of the world.
Right. Over the years I have gotten the sense that the real reason why the Dawkinses and the Coyneses of the world get so bent out of shape when someone pokes their finger into the holes into their beloved Blind Watchmaker Evolutionism is because it is a quasi-religion for them. Most humans (except sociopaths, perhaps) tend to worship something. Nobody likes their beloved idol besmirched and defiled.CentralScrutinizer_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Pav: We’re dealing with holy and sacred beliefs and realities, and we just don’t joke about these things.
If the real Creator doesn't have a sense of humor, then I feel sorry for him/her/them/it/whatever.CentralScrutinizer_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

"We’re dealing with holy and sacred beliefs and realities, and we just don’t joke about these things." Pav, I can't agree with you, when you want to include others in your particular belief about religion. YOU don't joke about such things perhaps, but who is the WE you are referring to? Religious belief is a personal decision. It is your belief that when you read the bible, you are reading a literal story. There is not really any more reason for you to believe this, then there is for someone reading the Vedas to believe the same thing. You could well be offending members of the Hindu religion, when you claim that only your religion is correct. I think the inflexibility of such a mindset is one of the great reasons why the science community has worked so tirelessly to form an opposition to what they see as a biblical opposition to science conclusions, rather than a logical one. I think your "anti-joke" requirement is as detrimental to the search for honest knowledge, as are the Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne censorship views of the world.phoodoo_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart:
But, again, that was my point. Are you saying that jokes about religion are forbidden?
Your post didn't have much of a point. It came across as less humorous and more "oh, look, another atheist Internet troll is here" post.
If there is a God, he obviously gave us a sense of humour for a reason. Probably to allow us to laugh at ourselves when we start taking ourselves too seriously.
Absolutely. Now can we make with the atheist jokes? Q: Why did the atheist throw her watch out the window? A: She wanted to see if it was designed intelligently enough to evolve into a bird. Q: What is so ironic about Atheists? A: They’re always talking about God. Q: Did you hear about the the evangelical atheist? A: She went door to door with a book full of blank pages. I'll be here all week, try the veal.
Christians certainly criticize and make fun of other religions and beliefs.
And atheists make fun of Christians far more often. Oh, and there is a big difference between an intelligent, honest critique of a religion and making fun of it. I trust you know the difference.
And if you accept the creationist claim that Darwinism is nothing but a religion in itself, then Christians definitely make jokes, mock and demean them.
I don't accept that it's a religion, but I find it most amusing that its most ardent supporters behave in the same manner as the fundamentalists they deride. Irony is delicious. Darwinian evolution has become more an all-encompassing ideology rather than a scientific theory.
If Christians are going to dish it out, why should you expect not to be treated in the same fashion.
Because atheists could refuse to behave in the same manner and thus take the moral high ground away from the Christians...oh, wait.Barb_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

PaV:"We’re dealing with holy and sacred beliefs and realities, and we just don’t joke about these things." But, again, that was my point. Are you saying that jokes about religion are forbidden? If there is a God, he obviously gave us a sense of humour for a reason. Probably to allow us to laugh at ourselves when we start taking ourselves too seriously. Christians certainly criticize and make fun of other religions and beliefs. And if you accept the creationist claim that Darwinism is nothing but a religion in itself, then Christians definitely make jokes, mock and demean them. If Christians are going to dish it out, why should you expect not to be treated in the same fashion.Acartia_bogart_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Just to add a little something to the discussion, here's what I had in mind when I posted: The TE position is that evolution was guided by God, but that to a very limited degree, if not completely so, there was never any direct intervention by God in genomic development, and that genomic development results rather from the guided use of the genome's existing and inherent mechanisms (NGE of Shapiro, e.g.). IMO, this argument crumbles when it comes to the Virgin Birth since it is reasonable to assume that entire chromosomes need to be supplied--or else Jesus is not the "Son of God", but purely the "Son of Mary", the Virgin who gave birth. I didn't address this conundrum to the broader scientific community since it is steeped in theological language and beliefs. However, for we who see the scientific validity of ID, this consideration should move us in the direction of understanding that if God wants to intervene in a discrete way, He surely can, and has likely done so. Genomic manipulations are not beyond God's power bring them about. (Although Scripture does not inform us that this is so.)PaV_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Acartia_B: My point is that what the world needs is a sense of humour. From what I have read about Jesus, he would have laughed at the “mailman” response. But his modern followers seem to have lost that. There is a kind of chastened tone in what you've written, and I appreciate that; however, the kind of joke you want to make is simply offensive to Christians. We're dealing with holy and sacred beliefs and realities, and we just don't joke about these things.PaV_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Or maybe there are Gods, but the bible is just another book about man's ongoing moral curiosity. A book by men discussing what they would imagine a God to be like.phoodoo_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

I personally view myself as a theistic evolutionist. I believe that the one thing you must hold to to carry this title is the acceptance of Universal Common Descent. This, not neo-Darwinism, is considered to be "the fact of evolution". (That said, I hold the UCD view with a much looser hand than all that.) This question is no question for me. I believe in miracles. I believe that biological life is as it is because of a gazillion miraculous, inventive events along the way. So this question then needs to be put to the theistic Darwinist, not merely the theistic Evolutionists.Moose Dr_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

tjguy @ 18
To make it mean something different than the plain meaning that most people would understand by reading it, I think you have to twist the normal meaning of the words too much. This violates the perspicuity of Scripture in my view.
Were you to read scripture in its original Hebrew & Greek, and divorce yourself from our modern English translations, traditions, and teachings, you would find the "normal [English] meaning" somewhat twists what the Hebrew or Greek text, grammar, and context support. You would also find some ambiguity in the meanings of Hebrew and Greek words, ambiguities that our modern English doesn't convey. I take a very high view of scripture. I believe it to be inspired and inerrant, interpreted literally except where it explicitly declares itself to be metaphore or symbolism. I expect it to be self-consistent and reconcile with everything we know to be actual fact, historically & scientifically. I find it generally does, but not always in modern English, and only to the extent the text actually informs me.
I personally believe Pav’s question is a valid one
I thought so too. It was not my intent to curtail comment, but rather open it further.Charles_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Charles @ 12
Jesus and Adam were both fully human and yet Adam didn’t receive the ‘first half’ of his DNA from a mother’s ovum, did he. Like Adam, Jesus was 100% human and thus qualified as kinsman redeemer for all humanity (however, that’s not say that Adam could have been a sinless sacrifice). …. The creator of the universe, ex nihilo, can create life in the womb, ex nihilo, if He chose. We just haven’t been told to that level of detail what His chosen method was.
Well, no kidding. He had no ancestors so it had to be that way. He didn’t receive any of his DNA from an ancestor. God provided it all. Yes, Adam was 100% human and certainly what you propose IS possible since all things are possible with God, but it doesn’t seem to be what the Bible teaches. That is my point. It’s not a matter of what God could or could not do, it is more a matter of what He said He did. This is my beef with OECers as well. To make it mean something different than the plain meaning that most people would understand by reading it, I think you have to twist the normal meaning of the words too much. This violates the perspicuity of Scripture in my view. But, I can think of more important things to argue about. In the end, I personally believe Pav’s question is a valid one, but I hear what you are saying.tjguy_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

Virginity of Mary is connected with how Adam and Eve were before original sin. The inmaculate conception of Mary is connected with how Adam an Eve were before original sin as well. If you don´t know what specifically was the original sin, you will not understand why Mary has to be virgen, and Why if she is virgin, necessarily she is the Inmaculate Conception as well. The clue to understand what was specifically the original sin is Genesis 7: 7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” Clean animals seven pairs. Unclean animals one pair. That is the point. The Catholic Church has defined dogmatically which kind of sin was the original sin, but not yet what specifically was. The specifity is hidden in the text for a good reason and connected with Apocalypse (and the Antichrist and his strange and unnatural powers). And Biology is connected both with Genesis and Apocalypse. Remember that there was a water flood in Genesis, and a fire flood in Apocalypse. Same sin, same correction, same new World. A traditionalist catholic.T_Paz_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

Mung @ 6
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Hebrews 2:14-18 The point is that he had to become fully human like we are in order to redeem us. He didn't become an angel so angels cannot be redeemed or saved from sin. Of course there are differences between Jesus and mankind. He was also God in human flesh. He never sinned. He had different looks than others. etc etc. Understand the point of the passage before making a silly point.tjguy_{May 14, 2014
May
05
May
14
14
2014
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

ronvanwegen @ 14 Are there biblical references to all the text you quoted?Dionisio_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

It might be of interest in this discussion - the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception which, contrary to popular belief, does not refer to the virgin birth but that Mary was herself conceived without sin. "In 1854, some four years before the apparitions of Our Lady to young Bernadette [at Lourdes where Mary referred to herself in this way, "I am the Immaculate Conception" - Ed], Pope Pius IX solemnly defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which stated that “the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin” (Ineffabilis Deus, no. 29). According to this doctrine, Mary was conceived in the state of perfect justice (just as Adam and Eve were created), free from original sin and all its consequences and penalties, in virtue of the redemption won by Jesus Christ on the Cross. In other words, while the rest of humanity benefits from the Cross after the Cross took place on that first Good Friday, it may be said that Mary benefited from the Cross before the Cross took place." http://www.cuf.org/2009/11/the-immaculate-conception-a-celebration-for-all-human-beings/ My own take on this is that, "It seems fitting".ronvanwegen_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

Charles @ 12
We just haven’t been told to that level of detail what His chosen method was.
Would our minds be able to understand such detailed explanation that includes supernatural action? At least mine wouldn't.Dionisio_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

tjguy; DebianFanatic; I'm going to answer by elaborating on a point raised by DebianFanatic:
If ~~Jesus~~ Adam is fully human, it makes sense that he inherited from his human mother his human body/machinery.
Jesus and Adam were both fully human and yet Adam didn't receive the 'first half' of his DNA from a mother's ovum, did he. Like Adam, Jesus was 100% human and thus qualified as kinsman redeemer for all humanity (however, that's not say that Adam could have been a sinless sacrifice).
... This miraculous donation of un-corrupt father-side DNA ... material makes Jesus as unique as Adam, who also inherited his DNA directly from God.
They were both unique, and if Jesus received the 'first half' of his DNA from Mary's ovum, he was arguably more unique than the first Adam, no? All I'm pointing out is that scripture seems to allow for Jesus to have been 'genetically composed' as was Adam. It's not the orthodox presumption, agreed, but regardless, as Jesus was born of Mary into Joseph's house, he descended from David (as foretold of the Messiah) explicitly thru Joseph by both lineage accounts (though arguments have been made that either genealogy is implicitly thru Mary), accepting as we all do that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. i.e. Jesus is accepted as descended from David thru Joseph without Joseph's biological contribution. And for Jesus to further be the only begotten of the Father, Son of God, member of the Trinity, involves more than genetic heritage, unlike Adam. The creator of the universe, ex nihilo, can create life in the womb, ex nihilo, if He chose. We just haven't been told to that level of detail what His chosen method was.Charles_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

PaV
that the Blessed Mother of Jesus was ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit.’
who was conceived? Dionisio_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

It was a miracle. Considering God is the author of creation it hardly seems a difficult task. Brothers = cousins.buffalo_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

De Novo conception:)? I used to consider myself a TE, with the "stuff happens" of Evo driven by God not by Oops. These days the evidence is pointing me to ID. Well, Theistic ID.ppolish_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

I'm not a TE, but ... 1) KJV Matt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. KJV Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. If we take the KJV at face-value, it seems from these two passages that Jesus was conceived within Mary's womb, not outside of it and then implanted into it. 2) It would be good to remember that a human is not simply the combination of the mother's half of DNA with the father's half of DNA. The mother contributes the actual soma, the body, the prime cell of the new human, as well as her half of the DNA. The cell is the machinery; the DNA is "just" the programming library that runs the machinery. The programming library is pretty useless without the machinery on which it runs. 3) If Jesus is fully human, it makes sense that he inherited from his human mother his human body/machinery. But at least half of the spirit, and half of the programming (and perhaps an "anti-corruption" gene that over-rides the corruption which the rest of us inherit from Adam, perhaps via the XY chromosome?), he inherited from a non-corrupted genetic donor, i.e. God. This miraculous donation of un-corrupt father-side DNA (and traces of spermatic-head RNA, proteins, etc) material makes Jesus as unique as Adam, who also inherited his DNA directly from God. Thus, as a "Second Adam", he was in a unique position to make a choice to obey/disobey God without the in-built corruption the rest of us have, putting him in a unique position to be able to pay, with death, for a death-sentence he himself was not owing. In other words, to answer the original question, the second half of Jesus' DNA came directly from God the Father via miraculous intervention.DebianFanatic_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

PaV, there was no attempt at blasphemy. Technically, as an atheist, I am incapable of blasphemy. But I am capable of pointing out the obvious. A wife comes home pregnant. Not normally a problem, unless she has never slept with the husband (and what is up with that?). We won't even suggest that "virgin" was a mistranslation of "young woman" My point is that what the world needs is a sense of humour. From what I have read about Jesus, he would have laughed at the "mailman" response. But his modern followers seem to have lost that.Acartia_bogart_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Reproduction without a male is known as parthenogenesis [Greek, parthenos meaning “maiden” plus “genesis”]. Recently scientists have been experimenting successfully with parthenogenesis in mammals. The Economist of August 1, 1981, reports: “Embryo development in the absence of sperm is the natural means of reproduction in many lower species of animal. . . . Parthenogenesis is being studied using laboratory mice. Several means exist for artificially activating an unfertilised mouse egg.” Similarly, Dr. M. B. V. Roberts of Marlborough College, England, writes: “An unfertilized egg was removed from a female rabbit, activated by pricking, and then popped back into the uterus. Hormone treatment had been previously given to the female so that her uterine mucosa was prepared for implantation. Normal development ensued, and a visibly normal offspring was produced.” Are we to conclude from this that God induced Mary’s pregnancy in some such way from an unfertilized egg? No. If Mary’s firstborn had received both chromosomes (X) from her, the offspring would of necessity have been female. Hence, something more must have been involved in the conception of Jesus. Just what this was the angel explained to Joseph: “That which has been begotten in her is by holy spirit.” (Matthew 1:20) We do not know precisely how this was done. Yet we must admit that if mere man can in a limited way manipulate the fertilization process in the laboratory, surely it is not beyond the power of the Creator and Life-Giver of the universe to do so and to transfer the life-force of his Son from the heavens to the ovum of a virgin girl.Barb_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

He had to be made like His brothers in every way in order to redeem them from sin.
So all his brothers were virgin-born as well?Mung_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Charles says:
You have an implied premise in: how did the ‘other half’ come about? that is possibly false. You assume that Mary contributed a ‘first half’. Scripture doesn’t actually supply that degree of detail.
Charles, I think Pav has a good point here. Jesus was prophesied to be a descendant of David. This was an important requirement that the Jews took very seriously all thru the ages. Also, I believe this was the whole point of the virgin birth. He had to be made like His brothers in every way in order to redeem them from sin. Heb. 2:10 - 18. So I'm gonna agree with Pav on this one. What do you think?tjguy_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Pav: You have an implied premise in:
how did the ‘other half’ come about?
that is possibly false. You assume that Mary contributed a 'first half'. Scripture doesn't actually supply that degree of detail. All we are told is that the Holy Spirit caused or created something in Mary. That could have been implantation of a viable, complete zygote or even a partially grown fetus, yes? FWIW, I'm not a TE, I'm an Old-Earth Creationist if that affects your view of my answer.Charles_{May 13, 2014
May
05
May
13
13
2014
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply