“...we acknowledge that God is not bound by physical laws and that his miracles are not made false by empirical or circumstantial evidence...”
Exactly. We have the reasoning ability to deduce from observation that God has brought us into being via an evolutionary process. I put no such bounds on God as to presume that his creation method would be in deniable opposition to all of the evidence that he has left behind.
You say "exactly," then you post absurdity like the above?
Pathetic!
Again you are confusing observation with circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no observational evidence that man was brought into being by some evolutionary process. None. Were you there? Did you witness it?
No what we have is a scientific method that from the outset excludes the possibility of intelligent design or creation and then after making the a-priori assumption that God could not possibly have actually created man or life or frogs or anything else, attempt to fathom an explanation for how it all got here.
In that sense Evolutionary science categorically denies God's role in his own creation.
Now I freely admit that my analysis starts with the a-priori assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and that we are a product of supernatural intelligent design and not chance.
But I think I can prove both scientifically and statistically that creatures evolving from slime to man is an impossibility beyond our wildest comprehension.
The honest Evolutionist will admit that life itself is a statistical impossibility, but then they claim that EVOLUTION MUST HAVE HAPPENED because we are here. When a Christian claims that CREATION MUST HAVE HAPPENED because we are here, they are ridiculed and referred to as Neandrathals or fanatics.