Yes, I was trying to leave the “detectable” part out, because I would’ve preferred a discussion of “guidance” rather than “intervention.” I don’t disagree with @jstump’s position in the article, but I think the unspoken context of “intervention” was confined to something that science can detect, while I think it should be applied to everything. In other words, the way that God’s “intervention” is being handled, particularly by Behe, is indistinguishable from “miracle.”
Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology provides a fairly typical modern definition of “miracles,” picturing them as events “not explainable solely by natural processes, but which require the direct causal agency of a supernatural being, usually God.” How is this different from “intervention,” as they are using the term?
Now, to my mind, a miracle must be detectable. Otherwise, if there is nothing to observe, there is nothing to explain, whether by natural processes or by God. The real question, then, is not whether a miracle/intervention is detectable, but whether the observed events are “not explainable solely by natural processes, but require the direct causal agency of God.”
I’ll even take it a step farther: If a miracle occurred in the forest and no one was there to observe it, was it a sign?
The Bible doesn’t speak in terms of miracles; its primary vocabulary, in both Hebrew and Greek, consists of “signs” (oth/semeion) and “wonders” (mopheth/teras). Usage determines meaning, and in the language-game of the Bible, “wonders” inspired awe and captivated people’s attention, while “signs” identified the Lord’s messenger and granted authority to the message. Thus, in biblical terms, signs and wonders function as non-verbal modes of communication similar to a gesture, which requires an observer to receive the message.
Unlike a sign, then, a miracle/intervention is not a communication from God to human beings; it is an event in the physical universe directly caused by God. Here, we see the crucial difference between the biblical usage of “sign” and the theological meaning of “miracle.” The former requires an observer, while the latter doesn’t.
By the same token, we might ask if the Big Bang was a miracle, or the creation of the first living cell? Possibly, according to our modern definition of the word. But, in biblical language, those events don’t qualify as signs or wonders. Who was there to observe?
As well, God does not ordinarily use miracles to conduct the normal course of his business. His only need for signs and wonders – and the only recorded biblical uses of them – is to grab the attention of people and deliver a message. Absent those requirements, why would God miraculously intervene at any point in the creation of the universe, of life, or of the first human beings? Because we think it’s somehow necessary to preserve his dignity?
In short, God may or may not have chosen to intervene in history prior to his creation of humanity. But, if we take Scripture as our guide, the Lord intervenes in order to send a message, not just because he can. Prior to the creation of humanity, of what need was a miracle to the Lord?