You are not listening well, and it does your credibility no good. If you want to define something your way, as long as you provide your definition, others can tell what you mean. But if someone else explicitly says that they are not defining things the same way as you, assuming that they are using your definition is not helpful to understanding.
A standard definition of biological evolution is change in gene frequencies over time in a population. Over time, these changes can lead to significant differences, recognized as new kinds. I have not personally been involved in one of the many studies that observed evolution happening over time. But I have collected fossils of varied ages in a dozen countries and have organized a major museum collection of fossils, in addition to visiting many other museums. I have extracted and sequenced DNA from a wide variety of organisms; I am waiting for an email from the sequencing lab right now. I see countless examples that fit the patterns expected under a model of evolution by natural selection. While not watching it happen, I am effectively looking at snapshots from various times and connecting them together.
Of course, we have no tardis to enable us to directly watch any past event. But that is not a good excuse to disregard the evidence that we have. It’s a particularly bad argument for Christians, as Christianity rests on the reliability of historical evidence relating to the work of Jesus. Also, it is bad as an argument for anything. If we can’t know anything about the past, we can’t know if any idea about it is right or wrong. Claiming that you can’t prove your idea, therefore my idea must be true is a bad argument common in young-earth claims. (No, you are not arguing for a young earth, but you are making use of some of their flawed argument approaches, and others do argue for it.)
I and several others on this forum have consistently asserted that God is fully involved in and controlling all “natural” processes. You favor a greater role for free will. Very well, I do not think we are predestined to solve that difference here. But biological evolution itself is nothing more or less than a scientific model. In that, it is no different from any other theory, and your denying that does not make it false. Where it is different is that many people try claiming that evolution supports their position on unrelated issues such as determinism versus free will or atheism or deism or theism or finding excuses for unethical behavior or bad economic and social policy. All the scientific theory of evolution tells us is that having particular DNA sequences or behaviors tends to increase or decrease the chances of passing on those sequences or behaviors to the next generation. Whether this is good or bad is a question beyond the capacity of science. One can easily put deterministic or free will spins on it, as one prefers. Evolution is nothing more than a pattern in the physical working of the world, but it is nothing less than a well-tested and strongly supported pattern.
One can, like Denton, take this as evidence of design behind the laws of nature to create a system that works so well to produce a changing diversity of organisms over time. Biblically, one can see this as an example of God’s wisdom and power and creativity. But the science itself is focused too small to see that, just as analyzing the physical properties of the electrons in the circuits that you are using to receive this message will not help you to understand the message.
Both “turn these stones to bread” and “jump off the temple” appealed for a miraculous shortcut rather than the work of doing things the normal way. Of course, that does not exhaust the nature of the temptations, but it is a component. More broadly, the use of miracles is quite restricted. The number of cases where God works some other way than using ordinary “laws of nature” is quite small compared to what does follow those laws, whether we look at the biblical record, other historical data, or our own experience. The Bible does not say why, but the contrast is quite obvious compared to something like legends about early saints, some of the apocryphal writings, or popular fiction like Harry Potter. Biblical miracles seem to generally restrict the non-natural component to the minimum to achieve the purpose. A wind parted the sea of reeds - at just the right time, for the right length of time, and Moses got an inside tip about it coming. The axe head floated long enough to be grabbed and fastened back on better. Water was turned to wine but had to be served in the ordinary manner. Thousands were fed and the leftovers were carefully saved. Jesus walked on the water, a rather slow and challenging effort with waves going up and down. Divine intervention gets Philip talking to the Ethiopian and Peter to Cornelius. Paul criticizes those demanding further signs. Demanding that God provide miraculously while neglecting to use the means that we have available to us is putting God to the test, not showing faith. Thus, there is a strong pattern of not using miracles. The Bible does not say why God choses not to use miracles more, but it is a consistent pattern.
Likewise, the miracles have a specific purpose of pointing to God, hence the terminology of “signs”. As the ID movement admits when trying to market itself as purely scientific, finding some sort of gap in evolution would not tell us if it were done by God or Zeus or high-tech space aliens or what. Given that God is smart enough and powerful enough to figure out how to use evolutionary pattens to the extent that He wants to, the best way to determine how much He used such patterns is to look at the available evidence.
