To distort the simple versus the straightforward understanding

I read your column and it really provokes more honest thinking.
I read columns 243 and 280 and 279, and it appears from your words that you agree that to say there is no divine involvement is to distort the verse. But since the observation says that you are not making an interpretation.
Even the Sages seem to have understood that there are no miracles that we see, they just concluded that when we don't see it, there is a possibility.
Just as the blessing is not found except in something hidden from the eye, even though one prays to God. Even though this is an intervention in nature, and this is a miracle.
And what you brought evidence of a fetus after 40 days. There is a fetus that exists as a creature and even for it miracles are not shown.
And before that, a fetus has no life (also with regard to murder). And apparently in our time, if it is something obvious to the eye, there is no intervention. And that is a technical matter.
And even during the time of the prophets, there was no intervention except in isolated cases. Only the prophet reveals that when he sinned, he gave power to another people to rule over them. But that was in a natural way. And yet, it did not change from their time. And as Maimonides said, the prophet was written to reveal to us more than we see.
And only with the power given to a person or with his choice can we say that there is intervention. And there is no observation that would oblige you to say the opposite. In other words, it is 50/50. And we also do not always know what makes us want certain things. And as the Maimonides writes, in making repentance, the Holy One, blessed be He, prevented him, and apparently even he did not know. They only revealed it to us.
And so the question returns: why distort the interpretation of the verse?
Thank you very much.