Scientific Determinism: “Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. This would exclude the possibility of miracles or an active role for God. It is the basis of all modern science … a scientific law is not a scientific law if it only holds when some supernatural being decides not to intervene.” (p. 30)
This is evidently an article of faith, arbitrarily precluding certain types of explanations a priori due to personal bias, even when such explanations appear reasonable given the evidence, and no other natural explanation seems remotely possible. This is unscientific, imposing one’s worldview on our observation rather than pursuing a world view which is consistent with Reality.
As in dealing with the singularity giving rise to the Big Bang, it should not be unscientific to accept a supernatural explanation as likely and reasonable when the evidence implies this, while continuing to explore possible natural explanations within reason. This is how the scientific method works in general, we accept the best model we have until we find a better one. When the only other available explanation is spontaneous creation ex-nihilo without any cause at all, divine intervention should be acknowledged until a better explanation is available.
A scientific law can still be a law in the sense of generally describing natural behavior, even though there may be certain exceptions where divine agency is implied. Typically, in the case of miracles, human beings are involved and there is purpose in the intervention; miracles are not random, haphazard disruptions of natural law because God is purposeful in all He does. (Ep 1:11)
Denying the possibility of miracles is evidently unreasonable, and will inevitably result in defaulting permanently to god-of-the-gaps, which is often simply an unwillingness to honestly address the event in question.
For example, I have a personal friend who was shot at point blank range 5 times in the chest area while being robbed, and he lived to tell about it; he is still alive today. In analyzing his wounds, the doctors had to concede that a miracle had occurred: two of the bullet tracks within his body abruptly dead-ended at the surface of vital organs. There was no bullet in the wound, the organ was unharmed, and there was no exit path for the bullet. It was as if the bullet ricocheted off the organ and traveled exactly in the reverse direction and exited his body out of the hole caused on penetration. Requiring a natural explanation in this scenario is a violation of natural law: this is not how physics operates in the context of human physiology.
Similarly, I have another friend, an Indian missionary, who was recently diagnosed with terminal, stage 4 cancer; he had numerous cancerous tumors throughout his lungs. He cried out to God to be healed and was personally assured by God Himself that God had healed him. Several days later, when returning for additional testing, the tumors had vanished; he was completely healed. The doctors told him that his God had intervened; there was no other possible way for them to explain what they experienced. He is now healthy, continuing his mission work back in India. Again, requiring a natural explanation in such scenarios is a violation of natural law: this is not how physics operates in the context of human physiology. He has hundreds of examples of miracles he has personally observed throughout his 40-year ministry in India.
I have a third friend who testifies that he and his collogues have seen demons exit people he is ministering to in Africa. They observed small, fiery entities leaving people and scurrying about the room after commanding the evil spirits to depart. One might say they imagined what they saw, or hallucinated, but people don’t have such experiences in groups. One might say they are lying, but these men regularly put their lives on the line for what they believe, and lying is an abomination in their world view. Again, requiring a natural explanation in this scenario is a violation of natural law: this is not how physics operates in the context of human interaction.
The above are but a few examples of the miraculous available for us to study and evaluate. While they are not strictly scientific in nature, in the sense they can be replicated in a lab, they can be evaluated forensically, which is a valid means of verifying historical events and should be as convincing as scientific studies when the evidence is compelling.
The most compelling miracle of all time is undoubtedly the Resurrection of Christ.