The Son of God is the creative Word of God — Logos Alpha and Omega — that is to say, from the Beginning to the End. Thus we have First Cause (the Beginning) and Final Cause (the Purpose for which the Beginning was made), and Immanent Cause in between.
The Creation is something that unfolds in space and time — that is, it evolves from a beginning to an end. Intervening causes are constrained or "entailed" by the Final Cause, for which the Beginning was made. Immanent Cause basically refers to the intervening "guides to the system" that were loaded into the system (so to speak) in the Beginning by God's Creative Word.
This is the causal context of the Creation, or of the Universe if you prefer. It is the context within which science (and everything else) happens.
This does not mean that God has to directly step in to effect change in, say, DNA (your example).
You ask me if it is possible to describe how DNA changes without resort to a Darwinist argument. But why use a "Darwinist" argument for anything having to do with DNA? Charles Darwin never even heard of DNA....
Darwin didn't have to know that the inheritable material was subject to molecular change to know that there was such a thing as variation that was subject to selection.
So how could one describe the change in DNA of an adapting bacterial population, that to you is them listening to the “creative Word of God”, without making reference to genetic inheritance, variation, and natural selection of that variation?
I was created by God, from dust, and to dust I will return. I was also created via a cellular process involving DNA. Describing the physical mechanism whereby this was accomplished no more removes God as my creator than describing the physical mechanism whereby species can (and do) change means that God was not their creator; just as describing how stars form through nuclear fusion and gravity doesn't remove God as their creator.
Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?
To you it seems that the “creative Word of God” is necessarily a miraculous mechanism indescribable by physical means or scientific theory. Our main point of contention it seems is that I fully believe the “creative Word of God” is not necessarily miraculous and IS describable (demonstrably in several cases I have outlined) by physical means.
The Creation is something that unfolds in space and time — that is, it evolves from a beginning to an end. Intervening causes are constrained or "entailed" by the Final Cause, for which the Beginning was made. Immanent Cause basically refers to the intervening "guides to the system" that were loaded into the system (so to speak) in the Beginning by God's Creative Word.
This is the causal context of the Creation, or of the Universe if you prefer. It is the context within which science (and everything else) happens.