Virgin Birth or Parthenogenesis?

Most evolutionists insist on riding the Philosophical and Methodological Naturalism Trail, we get that. It leads to a steep cliff and bad science, but it's their choice. But some owlhoots insist that their naturalistic views and empiricism are the be-all and end-all of knowledge, so they arrogantly use their Darwinian presuppositions to "explain" theology.

Sometimes a commitment to naturalism leads to really wild speculations. Not only bad science, but bad theology that is actually blasphemous.
Image credit: "More Than Christmas" by Dan Lietha / Answers in Genesis
The virgin birth of Jesus cannot be explained by parthenogenesis. This idea is not only terrible science, but they disunderstand theology with a vengeance. There are many prophesies about Jesus' birth, and it is very important to the gospel message. Christmas is about the Creator taking on human form (Phil. 2:5-11, Col. 1:16, John 1:3), as prophesied, for our redemption. All have sinned against God and deserve death, but God has given us salvation as a gift (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23). We need to humble ourselves and repent — seek the savior, not intellectualized excuses.

Evolution is a philosophy of rebellion against God. If people want to reject him, that's on them. But to show such disrespect and blasphemy to support naturalistic views is beyond the pale. Then they proclaim that they know "reality", based on their question-begging presuppositions. Not hardly!
Secular scientists are free to disbelieve in the Virgin Birth, but should at least try to understand what they are denying.

Current Biology published a blooper. In a Dispatch on the subject of Parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction by unfertilized eggs), Casper J. van der Kooi and Tanja Schwander from the University of Lausanne did fine discussing fish, moths and reptiles. But they really should have stayed out of theology and Biblical interpretation. Here’s the opening:

To read the rest of the article, click on "Jesus Was Not a Product of Parthenogenesis".