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