I was delighted to see David Bailey quote a recent article by Joshua Moritz, in which he points out that the Bible uses the same verb to refer to God creating or making the lightning, or a baby in the womb, as for making sea creatures, and beasts of the field, and human beings, in a variety of passages.
No one who is not completely deluded and/or ignorant of the relevant evidence would deny that there are explicable natural processes involved in the formation of lightning, and snow, and organisms in the womb.
And so why do some people selectively choose to object only to the explanation of our origins from earlier living things in natural terms, when science accounts in natural terms for just about every process which, in the Bible, is prefaced with the words “God made…” ? What drives this? It cannot be fidelity to the Bible, since it rides roughshod across the Bible. Either God can be said to do all of those things without it contradicting explanation in natural terms, or belief in God as creator is disproven quite straightforwardly by means of meteorology and embryology, with no need to discuss the complexities of evolutionary biology. You can choose either, but what you cannot do while being consistent and honest is to embrace most of mainstream science, and then choose to regard one small subset or a handful of select domains as incompatible with Christian faith while the others are not.