Parthenogenesis

a virgin shall conceive… give birth…  Luke 1:31, 34

Is it reasonable—logical for a rational mind to belief in the virgin birth? I.e. that a woman who has never had sexual relations with a male should conceive and give birth to a child?
Before you answer think about the definition of a virgin.

Oxford Dictionary definition:

• A person who has never had sexual intercourse:
• A person who is naive, innocent, or inexperienced in a particular context:
• Entomology A female insect that produces eggs without being fertilized.
• Adjective: Not yet used, exploited, or processed: [e.g. acres of virgin forests]

What do you think—should the following qualify as virgins? A baby girl who has no hymen at birth? How about a girl raped while unconscious? And the well known cases of young women who had their hymen torn during sports or accident, but had never had sex?

Is a notoriously promiscuous girl—who does not go all the way but, has done every imaginable and unimaginable thing, still a virgin because the hymen is still intact?

For the purpose of this piece we are using the bible’s intended meaning: a girl or woman who has never had sex with a man. (Let’s refer to this as true virgin). Just for argument: such a virgin can give conceive by artificial insemination. And many midwives can confirm that with a few women the hymen survives until labor, even with ‘natural’ insemination.

If it can be demonstrated that it is scientifically possible for a true virgin to conceive then any unwillingness to believe is: irrational and a willful choice not to believe. Could be such do not want to believe because of the consequences of it being true.

 Ever since in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer came on the scene in 1978 (not to mention artificial insemination), it has 'become’ quite possible for a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse to conceive.
Many will agree that it is not only very possible for virtual virgins to conceive but also that many have given birth to healthy babies. But, not many will want to accept that true virgins can conceive and give birth without a father (especially to a male child). They argue: where will the male components of the DNA come from? They believe their doubt is based on science and not on a bias—an unwillingness to believe in the virgin birth.

Science of it
Scientific Logic also shows parthenogenesis is not impossible since it is observed in many animals. But, is it possible in man? If it happens in man it is not likely to be noticed because of the mind-set that it is impossible: (She must have done something people conclude, and if there is a suitable scape goat all the better). Of course where there is a husband—the conception is assumed to be normal.

The bible’s position is that a true virgin conceived and had a male child. And the explanation: just as God created (formed) Adam, He also formed a new creation in Mary’s womb. He used genetic material free from the damages in the Adamic DNA. Like He formed the 1st Adam from the earth, He was simply forming another Adam—the spiritual 2nd Adam called Jesus who is equipped to start a new lineage.
Today, science is beginning to (grudgingly?) accept the possibility of virgin or sexless birth.

Virgin birth in Science

Parthenogenetic mouse (Credit: Jane Burton / NPL)

Virgin birth, known to scientists as parthenogenesis, appears to be rather common in the animal kingdom. Many insects and other invertebrates are capable of switching between sexual and clonal reproduction. Among the vertebrates, virgin births have been documented in at least 80 taxonomic groups, including fish, amphibians, and reptiles. (see Wikipedia)
A few years back so far as anyone could say — and there were a few gaps in the data, notably the platypus — it was thought no mammalian species is capable of giving birth without a father.
Observations indicated that: First, a mammal's egg cell usually won't divide until it receives a signal from the sperm. Second, most mammalian eggs have only half the number of chromosomes necessary for development. If there isn't any sperm, the embryo will end up with only half the DNA it needs to survive.

Biologists believed that Parthenogenesis in humans could never produce viable embryos, because unfertilized eggs lack specific instructions about gene expression from the sperm.
So, if there's no sperm, certain genes will be over expressed, and the "embryo" will die when it is only about five days old.

By eliminating a pair of maternal genes, a Japanese team was able to create, via parthenogenesis, a viable baby mouse that was seemingly unaffected by its lack of paternal imprinting. Such recent findings have modified the “impossible” to “it's possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother but very unlikely.”

Electrical motivation
Use of an electrical or chemical stimulus can produce the beginning of the process of parthenogenesis in the asexual development of viable offspring.
(if electricity can do this how much more can the Holy Spirit, the Super Technologist?).

On June 26, 2007, International Stem Cell Corporation(ISCC), a California-based stem cell research company, announced that their lead scientist, Dr. Elena Revazova, and her research team were the first to intentionally create human stem cells from unfertilized human eggs using parthenogenesis.
On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that discredited South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk unknowingly produced the first human embryos resulting from parthenogenesis.

Summary
The idea that a virgin birth is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE is now out of date. Observations and investigations are proving otherwise.

A team led by Dr Tomohiro Kono from the Tokyo University of Agriculture called its fatherless mouse Kaguya, after a mythological Japanese princess.
One of the team's 28 mice through parthenogenesis survived to become a healthy adult female: a rate the researchers describe as "beyond expectations".

Conclusion
With the recent findings in biology and genetics, it is no longer rational to doubt the possibility of virgin birth. Possibility does not equate everyday occurrence. And rare does not imply never. 

“Of course, the Bible makes it clear that it was Almighty God, not some high-paid gynaecologist, who worked the details of Jesus' Divine-Human conception, i.e. “And the angel answered and said unto [Mary], The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
   —Luke 1:35, KJV.
If credible people claim that it actually happened in Nazareth two thousand years ago we have no reasonable reason to doubt it—that God almighty could arrange something which science admits is possible.

[material for this piece was netted from various sites on the internet including: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141219-spectacular-real-virgin-births, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1676240.stm ]

Blind Men of Industan

measuring temperature with a stethoscope, or recording light with your microphone.

The Age of the Earth--Does it matter?

Have you noticed that we quarrel over minor things with those closest to us; spouses, kids, friends, siblings? It is difficult for the average guy to quarrel with a total stranger over minor issues. Is it that we quarrel more with those who are most like us because it is more unsettling that they are not thinking the way they should think? Which might indicate that we are wrong about what we think to be right?

My approach: truth does not depend on my views (right or wrong), or the views of creationists or evolutionists. I suspect the reality is more like the experience of the six blind men of Hindustan and their individual description of an elephant (which were based on 'observed' facts).
The universe is multidimensional; even if we are all wrong, the truth remains unchanged.

The microphone captures sound better than it captures light. and the doctor's stethoscope is better for monitoring heart beats than for measuring a patient's temperature. Similarly, science tells us the universe works but cannot tell us why it was created, by whom and, what is right and what is wrong. Science is a crude tool for exploring philosophy and religion, or the arts.

The Bible is not a science textbook--therefore should not be expected to contain detailed scientific descriptions. (How should a super-technologist describe a cell phone or the internet to people who lived 1000 years ago?)
However, the bible if true should not negate true science. The two might appear to be contradictory in two instances: First, where bible is using literary language like metaphors and similes or is simply trying to communicate using the current knowledge of the audience [e.g. sun rising in east and setting in west]; Second, where science itself has not developed enough to make sense of the biblical description [e.g. cleaving of the earth].

Science and Atheism
Atheism is a 'faith', religion or philosophy--an inclination of the heart (mind set) and is different from science. Science is a body of knowledge based on empirical facts, postulations and theories..
The existence or not of God  falls outside the scope of science. There are thousands of theistic scientists and thousands of atheist scientists.
Science is investigative and progressive, i.e. the laws and theories are subject to change as better instruments bring better measurements (Newton laws break down as size and mass become very small).


Academic freedom in today's brave new world

A hundred years ago, science knew that the atom was made up of a nucleus surrounded by negatively charged particles called electrons orbiting the nucleus. Today we know that the nucleus is made of different objects which sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves, and so also the electron.
Similarly, we can be sure that many things we know today will tomorrow be wrong as knowledge increases.
We know that everything that goes up comes down--gravity--but today, we have learnt to apply scientific knowledge in overcoming gravity.

Atheism is a bias, and the atheist scientist tends to be selective in the choice of postulates and theories, and experiments and conclusions. Theists also are biased--but they are generally less so, in  my opinion. The biases of the atheist or theist cannot change the truth. But we should be aware that the scientist may be biased--and so learn to separate the true science from the philosophic bias of the scientist.
God, as God could create the world in nano-seconds if He chose to do so, or, in trillions of years. This means evolution does not disprove the reality of God.

But, The issue here is the reliability of the scriptures: If the current world was not created then the bible is mistaken. And if it is mistaken in something as fundamental as the origin of the present world then the general accuracy is questionable.

As a scientist I can see the apparent reasonableness of evolution theory, but I cannot accept it as the truth because there are so many unsatisfactory facts: e.g., sparsity of transition forms in fossil records (this accusation  is supposed to be the greatest sin of creationists).  Even if I put aside the inadequacy of fossils records, why can we not observe the process today? Has the evolutionary process stopped? If so who stopped it and when and why? Also, there is the complexity of the universe which does not give enough time to achieve the probability of evolution within the theorized time.

As a believer, I find it difficult to graft evolution into the creation story in Genesis. If the days are metaphorical (epochs of millions or billions of years), then what is the timing for the recreation of the earth? (New heaven and new earth in Revelation 21:1)
if the billions of years of evolution occurred between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 then how long did the recreation take? if six days, then where did evolution get the time for transition from one life form to another?

If creation took billions of years (i.e. evolution) then death was required for the less fit life forms to die out as evolution proceeded. If so, what was the consequence of sin?  Genesis says death came from sin (leading to 'devolution') but evolution says death existed before sin.
What was the curse all about if death already existed?

Why did God call the creation good if there was already survival of the fittest, sickness and diseases?
What is redemption all about? (the last enemy is death--does it mean evolution will stop? If God has the power to stop death in the future, could He not have had the same ability to stop it in the past?)
In the millennial reign of Christ the Bible tells us people will live to 1,000 years: are we going to evolve to that state?
There will be no sickness and carnivores will change their diet: would these imply sudden change to our DNA instead of gradual change over millions of years as evolution teaches? If God can instantly change or redesign DNA in future why not in the past?
What is heaven all about? Will we still be evolving in heaven? If so, heaven could not be perfect.

Conclusion
Even if we can massage the biblical facts to fit in with evolution theory we still have the problem of the message of the bible which is totally contrary to the message of evolution theory. If we (millions of believers) have the right understanding of the message of the bible--and if this same message is true as understood by millions of believers today, then the evolution theory cannot be true as it is.
Blind men of Indostan

Why I Believe

Truth by it nature is fundamental; and fundamental truths are pre-established and determined by the Creator of All Things.

This implies truth can only be discovered and cannot be created or invented by man. Truth is universal, therefore the same truths can be discovered by different people independently.
Also, truth is self-affirming: It resonates with a part of us that recognises the truth--if we are open to and are willing to know the truth. (Of course, there are situations when we prefer not to know the truth and so we deny the reality of truth--It might intervene with the pleasure seeking part of us or with perceived short-term 'gains').

The foundation of rational (logical) thinking is the unchanging fact that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time.
If we are imaginative enough we know that a thing might be true while we might not have access to the facts proving that truth.
To illustrate: it might be true that other intelligent beings exist on other planets of our Universe but we don't have the facts to prove this. Yes there are speculations and theories and projections based on the limited facts available to us. The discovery of DNA or unicellular organisms on a far away planet is no sure proof. We do not know if the molecules or cells were conveyed from the earth by a comet many years ago.

Implications
The existence of truth implies the existence of right and wrong. If truth is constant (something that is really true cannot change and become untrue or false) then, right and wrong cannot be arbitrary.
A proof of this: those who claim truth or right is relative feel offended when they suffer wrong (e.g. when duped of a large sum of money or a small girl is kidnapped and raped).

The existence of truth, and of universal right and wrong implies someone (something?) set the standards. I believe that person (something that has a mind and is intelligent should be a person) is God. He is the creator of all things and the setter of standards.--He knows the truth about everything and about every one.

-----------------------
NB: this is not a philosophical paper. Just sharing my thoughts--how I arrived at my own "beyond reasonable doubt."  Your comments and reactions are welcome.