It is a misinterpretation of reality. In reality the universe, our planet, and the biological life contained within did not spring forth from a naturalistic source - it was all created mature by a supernatural being.
But the theory of evolution is not a theory about reality. Any Christian would agree that reality did not simply spring forth. It is a creation.
Evolution is a process within that reality and I don't see how it misinterprets reality as it is not about the nature of reality.
Science is not about the nature of reality at an ontological level. That's a matter for philosophers and theologians to discuss. Scientists focus on what we can learn about empirical phenomena----whatever the nature of reality.
No, but close. If this universe and this planet developed into maturity without supernatural intervention from a divine being - such as God - then there must be a naturalistic explanation.
That's true enough, but that is not what the theory of evolution is saying because that is not what it is about. It is not even what science is about.
Do you not agree that within God's creation there are natural processes which can be accounted for without specific miracles for each and every one? Like the cycle of day & night and of the seasons? Like rainfall and tides? Like the processes of conception and intrauterine development?
Do you not agree that such processes occur in nature and can be explained as natural processes without detracting in any sense from your first statement that the nature of reality as such is that it is a supernatural creation.
The theory of evolution is a theory about such a natural process. That's all.
And so far, you have not spoken at all to the evidence supporting the theory of evolution and how the understanding of the nature of reality you & I agree on leads to misinterpreting that evidence.
However, since this is not the reality of our origins it is a hopeless endeavor to try and explain our origins under the philosophy of naturalism. This means many natural-based origin theories are more than just wrong - many are impossible (i.e. abiogenesis, etc.).
What I fail to see is how the theory of evolution is an attempt to support the philosophy of naturalism. That makes no more sense to me than saying the science of optics (which explains how rainbows form) is an endeavour to explain rainbows under the philosophy of naturalism or that the science of gravity is an endeavour to explain the origin of tides under the philosophy of naturalism.
Surely science can offer an understanding of nature in its own terms apart from replacing a theistic view of the reality of nature.
It seems to me that it is a gross distortion of evolution to treat it as a principle of philosophy rather than as an explanation of a natural phenomenon.
Taking the example noted above, most scientists would consider abiogenesis a necessary factor in believing in a purely naturalistic origin theory. I agree that this is the naturalistic interpretation of the evidence. I just don't believe it nor do I feel it is possible.
Well that takes me back to my first point. Would you say the same of evolution? Would you agree that it is a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence?
If so, why call it a misinterpretation? Even if you don't believe it nor feel it is possible, you are not showing that the evidence has been misinterpreted.
This is a false dichotomy because you added the clause "that imitated natural processes". Creation is not the imitation of natural processes. It is a real supernatural act.
I agree, creation is not the imitation of natural processes. But go back to what I said earlier. Surely the universe God created does have natural processes that do not require specific supernatural actions in addition to the supernatural origin of creation itself.
I believe these natural processes themselves do depend on the constant presence and power of their Creator; but that is a different matter than specific supernatural actions.
My point was that if and when God chooses to intervene in history with a supernatural action, that action may be obvious as contrary to what ordinarily occurs in nature -- like the parting of the sea during the Exodus--or it may imitate nature--as Mary's pregnancy was apparently like any other pregnancy. God may have brought each and every species into creation by a separate supernatural act. But if he did, he did so in such a way that the evidence is identical to what it would be if he brought each and every species into existence via common descent and natural selection.
How then can we know from the physical evidence that evolution is not a natural process?
It boils down to two main philosophical presuppositions. The universe, our planet, and all biological life has either a supernatural origin or a natural origin.
I agree this is an important question and one on which a Christian necessarily opts for a supernatural origin of the created order: universe, space-time, gravity, light, galaxies, stars & planets, life.
But it is an issue entirely outside the theory of evolution and interpreting the evidence adduced for evolution.
I never said their interpretation was rational.
By rational I meant an interpretation that does not depend on God stepping in with a specific supernatural action. e.g. when a city is left without power during a severe thunderstorm a non-rational (not necessarily irrational) explanation would be that God called up this specific thunderstorm and its impact on the power-grid. A rational explanation would see the thunderstorm as part of a meteorological pattern and not a specific supernatural action.
I call the latter a rational explanation because it depends on observation and reasoning from those observations to understand the formation of thunderstorms. The explanation that this particular thunderstorm is an exceptional supernatural act could be true, but all one can do is assert it. No evidence-based reasoning leads to that view.
So, it seems to me that you accept that, unless one calls on a supernatural act to explain the origin of each species (or closely related group of species), the application of rational logic to the evidence does lead to the theory of evolution and is not, per se, a misinterpretation of the evidence.
Any such rational interpretation is undercut by appeal to the supernatural. But that doesn't make it a misinterpretation because rationality cannot foresee the intervention of a supernatural action.
