"I thought that was so obvious as to need no explanation."
Ah, thanks much. I now understand. I thought maybe you were trying to argue that genes constituted some kind of alternative scripture, or even that Scripture itself had been encoded into our genes. Instead you are simply saying that genes are God's mechanism for specifying the traits He wants His creations to have. Well, you'll get no argument from me on that!
But that only compounds the problem of the physical image. Your own words: "Thus the genetic code is a means by which God communicates whatever _likeness of himself that may be physical_...[emphasis mine]." Since the likeness of mankind is flesh-and-blood humanity, this reinforces the idea that, if we are made in the **physical** image of God, His likeness is that of flesh-and-blood humanity as well, which you flatly reject. So now I believe it is more important than ever that you explain in what way we are made in the physical image of God.
"I think I answered this in the last post, at least to the best of my knowledge."
But it was answer that explained nothing; all you did was redescribe your position. I understand what you believe; what I am trying to understand is why you believe it. If God is not a flesh-and-blood human, in what way are we made in the physical image of God?
Kevin L. O'Brien