…clarify for me how our modern understanding of human biology differs from the time when the virgin birth was originally imagined?

Genetics. A child inherits approximately 50% of their chromosomes (one set of genes), from each parent. The chromosomes are made of DNA, our genetic “instructions”. The ancients, knowing nothing of genetics of course, believed that the woman was a more or less passive receptacle. All the magic was in the male jizz. If the father was a human then the child was a human. If the child was a god then the offspring was a demi-god.

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth becomes a bit strange when you consider the dependence of the child not just on the sheathing of the mother’s body but on her genetic makeup. And did God create an entire set of male genes out of thin air? We can say, It’s a miracle!, surely, but that’s not an explanation but the lack of one.

I suppose my larger point is that this doctrine could only have arisen in a world that possessed a certain set of assumptions about the human person that we no longer share.

I’m not sure how Collins reconciles his religious views with his scientific views. Perhaps he doesn’t think they need reconciliation. There are those who advocate ‘theistic evolution’. It’s simply impossible to deny the reality of evolution so one must give an accounting of some sort I would think.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **

The problem for me is that by definition evolution is an unguided process. Also there are implications that spring from a God using evolution as a method of creation.