It undermines bullshit

Poor choice of words. Science doesn't undermine anything. It debunks bs with evidence.

Truth undermines religion, wherever it comes from.

The BBC's need to be inclusive undermines it remit to be balanced, but it tries its best.

Funny they never got around to talking about the way religions “undermine” each other. (Read undermine here as attack, denounce, persecute, slaughter...insert your favourite sanguinary adjective as you see fit.)

What is funny is the christians who think the virgin birth is something unique in mythology.

Global flooding too.

Gilgamesh told it better.

Virgin births are no big deal. I have read that in South America (heavy Catholic territory), about 4 or 5 virgin births happen every year. Young girls are in the habit of giving handjobs to their boyfriends so they can keep their virginity until marriage. But then many of those girls satisfy themselves afterward without washing their hands. Guess what happens. Some of those dedicated little swimmers make their way up into the promised land, and Presto! A new little baby Jesus comes along.

Footnote: "Any sexual activity that introduces sperm into — or around — the vagina could result in a sperm making its way to the egg." --Healthline

Denotatvely yes, science is undermining religion. That said, most media using the term undermining are looking at the word connotatively, which is a negative. I do not believe science undermining religion is a negative thing, but unfortunately, many out there do see science ina bad light, which furthers the stupidity of peoplekind.

I'll be damned if I ever try AGAIN to talk to a fundamentalist Catholic about the virgin birth.

I think the anti science attitude of many religions shows exactly that: science has been undermining the basis of religions for centuries. Between cosmology, theoretical physics, evolutionary biology and other fields, the falsehoods of religion have been revealed. God is not needed to explain the universe or the creation of life. While not all fully known, more than enough exists to ignore religion. Also, it's not just the physical sciences, also the social sciences, like history, which has contextualised Christianity so much (another dead and rising God death cult), and Christology ( serious history of Jesus exposes the myth). Believers know about all this in the internet age and can't ignore it. Scratch many of them and resentment is what you will find. Of course, all the trimmings and gadgetry of science, like technology, they're happy to have, just not anything that dispatches their God into irrelevance.

"Is Evidence Undermining Religion?"

Here's the link to the program if anyone wants to see it.

In that truth undermines lies and delusions... yes.

Always.

Mormons believe that since God was once a man having lived a worthy life on another earth-like world (perhaps on another planet, or perhaps in an alternate universe) he became a God with a perfected body. God therefore would possess DNA to pass onto Jesus (although they tend to stop short of saying God had actual sex with Mary; how DNA was transferred is a "mystery" ). Since DNA was known about for more than a millennium, the concept of virgin birth - especially of a male - was not a problem they could even conceive of.

To address the question of is science undermining religion, my answer would be that is does for the simple fact that increased knowledge of how our world works dispells the fantasy and made up portions of religious tradition. Religion can be very flexible in adapting to new discoveries and can incorporate new fact so long as it is less tied to documents recording and explaining certain events. The discussion above of the Mormon's adaptations above are an example. Humans seem to have the ability to rationalize anything so long as they don't need to be fully integrated together. It's kind of like the paradox drawings where at various point of the drawing, it appears reasonable and to make sense as one's eye follows the details, but it isn't until details are attempted to be integrated into an entire picture that the inconsistencies become evident. If one can compartmentalize the details away from one another, then they can be believe in and pretended to be consistent and congruent.

My personal view is that our minds work in this way understanding things in bits and pieces. It would be like learning math and learning to read. Each requires a different set of abilities or skills to understanding and translation of symbols into something that makes sense. (For some of us, language still poses a challenge to our understanding since there are so many exceptions to its rules - never mind the variety of language dialects or accents, much less whole other languages). The difference between science and religion in my understanding is science attempts through fact finding to resolve the incongruence between various details of concepts and representations - even within the same depictions - while religion attempts to continue applying its traditional explanations or bending or outright denying new discoveries in order preserve its traditions. They fear going to hell if the lose their religion without realizing the loss of their religion means the loss of their concept of hell as a place or a concept to be afraid of.

Would Adam and Eve have had navels?

According to the gospels the genealogy of Jesus is traced through Joseph. Some misguided people even claim at one point they use a genealogy of Mary, but this would never have been allowed. The person doing the recording simply got confused. If we are to assume a lineage through Joseph this would also solve parentage and DNA questions. There is no way to get DNA from the Invisible Man and we must conclude that the original kingdom of the person we call Jesus was meant to be an earthly kingdom. This is what the genealogy proves. Death and confusion kind of mess up that plan, so the bible took another direction.

It is my full belief that the Internet will prove to be the death of god. Modern apologists just keep making it all up and religious viewpoints change, but this will not stop real facts from being known quickly as they emerge. Archaeology has already proven most of the bible to be false and only the religious will disagree with that. This is why they keep setting up new "institutes" to spread their beliefs. Archaeology does not come from any new institute at all. It is entirely scientific and does not involve faith.

IN THE closest thing to a human virgin birth that modern science has ever recorded, British geneticists last week described the remarkable case of a young boy whose body is derived in part from an unfertilised egg. The discovery has provided a rare glimpse into the control of human development and the evolutionary changes that made sex essential for mammalian reproduction.

Read more: [newscientist.com]

SCIENCE - asks the Question first, then sets about FINDING the Answers BUT is ALWAYS open to revision, questioning, etc, etc but never ever simply closes the book on either the Questions nor the Answers.
Whereas, imo, on the OTHER hand,
RELIGION - STATES it has the Answers but flatly REFUSES to be Questioned or ITS Answers Examined.
Science is NOT, imo, 'undermining' Religion, it merely seeks out the Truth , the Facts and the Evidences that are at hand and present UNTIL further questions, etc, CAUSE it to seek further Information, Facts and Evidences that may or not not correlate or disagree with the first proposed Hypotheses.
For example, Christianity and ALL Abrahamic based beliefs STATE that Man was ' created ' by God from a handful of dust and dirt, then Eve was ' created ' from ' a bone ( rib) taken from Adam by God WHO could ONLY ' create man from dust and dirt.'
To my mind, this begs the questions,
Why could his God ONLY ' create ' a Male of the species from common dirt, etc, and NOT do exactly the same when ' creating ' the FEmale of the exact same species?
Was it ONLY a Human being that this God could manage to ' create ' from dust and dirt, How did the myriad of Fauna and Flora come into being then?
Genetically, Human Males carry within EVERY cell of their bodies the X and the Y Chromosomes, conversely, Human Females carry within EVERY cell of their bodies ONLY 2 (TWO) X Chromosomes, at conception either an X Chromosome combines with a Y Chromosome and produces a MALE Offspring or X combines with another X Chromosome and produces a Female Offspring.
Therefore, Adam ONLY carrying the X, Y Chromosome Combination COULD ONLY ever had lead, logically, to EVE becoming a Cloned Male of Adam thus making it ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the pair to breed and produce Off-spring.
UNLESS of course, and that is a Cosmos sized UNLESS btw, this Abrahamic God was the VERY FIRST GENETIC Scientist and Gene Manipulator.

Damn! Missed it. Had a late night, followed by an all-morning lie-in.

Lots of interesting conversation here, I'll just look at your last sentence and say replace god with the words "We must" and I assume you misspelled religious, and I agree.

Yes. but we need an un-blooded way of doing things in the meantime. The opposition [not In the Uk born communities thankfully] tend to rely on martyrdom and plan events that spill blood even though they say that they did not intend to. In America you think you can solve things with a gun which does more than draw blood. It really IS "Shimple."

Science is our version of the bible for approaching the truth.

Science never has been able to supply meaning to life in any way other than mechanical. It also chips away at hope that any meaning might be found. I think the truth of the matter is that science is also a faith - faith that it knows or can find the answers to big questions.

I think David Bohm was on the right track when he teamed up with Jiddu Krishnamurti so that science and philosophy might join forces to break the current impasse on knowledge development.