Replies

So was the creation of my physical body “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?

I have no idea, since I do not know what you mean by "less literal."

Does describing the physical means whereby my body was created warrant the same supposedly rational attacks as would describing the physical means whereby evolution is accomplished?

Darwinian evolution theory is driven by natural selection — which, in itself, is an immaterial concept, not a "physical means."

If the DNA of a bacterial population is changed, and God doesn’t need to directly intervene, why would describing the mechanism whereby the bacterial DNA changed be a “Darwinist” argument?

I wouldn't use a Darwinist argument in the first place. It doesn't explain as much as you think it does.

Darwin's theory is, at best, based on a "smoking gun." (See the excellent article by Carol Cleland for details re: "smoking guns" in science.) As long as Darwinists continue to search for and validate this "smoking gun," they will not be looking for any other plausible explanation for how evolution does its work. And it seems to me that, as long as they insist that evolution is a purely material process, they will continue to miss the boat entirely....

Really? You don't understand? That is amusing. I will explain.

I was created by God “from dust” but there was also an underlying cellular process involving DNA.

Adam was created by God “from dust” as well. Is it possible that as with my own creation “from dust” there was also a cellular process involving DNA going on?

Or was Adam's creation “from dust” a miracle because Adam was literally formed from dust - and my own creation “from dust” LESS literal and LESS miraculous - because I was also created through an understandable physical process?

Death of unfavorable variations in response to environmental stress is a physical means of changing the DNA of a population - it is not just conceptual.

You say you accept evolution - but apparently don't think it is explainable via physical means and that any attempt to do so is a “Darwinist” argument that justified what the woman did.

Do you similarly think that a description of the physical means whereby my body was formed “from dust” would be similarly justification and a “Darwinist” argument that reduces the role of God?

So was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust” because there was an understandable physical process going on in the case of my creation?

Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?