I posted this comment on (the radio show) Philosophy Talk's blog:
Interesting discussion. I lean towards the view that miracles are abundant, but perspectives are limited.
Another point: science is faith-based. My Dad & I had this discussion many times -- have we ever seen atoms, molecules, or for that matter the Earth from space? Not personally -- we take the word of others to be true (or pics/videos which w/current tech could easily be falsified.)
Similarly, science is not actually a compilation of facts -- it's a compilation of theories about observed/recorded phenomena which are subject to many flaws, most notably the flaws of the theoreticians and their framework/worldview.
To continue, NAZI's and many USA/Euro scientists have conducted the cruelest experiments on unwilling victims (NAZI's experimented w/sterilization & many forms of vile surgeries, plus we know of Tuskeegee experiments & now Guatamala STD experiments) in pursuit of 'science'. Much of science continues these practices today on unwilling animal subjects, from genetic experiments to grafting & organ farming to cross-breeding & vivisection & brain experimentation on living creatures).
Worldview is a key factor for all these developments.
While I like many of the developments of science, I would like an option to collectively choose to not pursue various technologies which are like a 'Pandoras Box' of potentially evil outcomes -- nuclear weapons, GM foods (on a massive scale), and bio-war (virii & killer bacteria) are among my top list of BAD science pursuits.
Personally, I think that the products of billions of years of evolution are miraculous. I know of no evidence to show that evolution is the sole factor in current human development (ie could aliens have intervened? Etc.) Also I've experienced psychic & spiritual phenomena which I can't explain scientifically.
Last point: science requires repeatable processes for verification -- it uses deductive reasoning to figure things out. However, the possibility of unique occurrences and singularities which can't be repeated are challenging for our science of today to handle. No ways to test or repeat. Similarly, research can be skewed by manipulating the participants, the factors, changing test parameters, throwing out certain data, or locations. In many studies, the results are hidden inside the margin of error -- and occasionally (as with the global climate change 'debate' & w/research into tobacco and alcohol) the funders of the research may only release scientific research which validates their set viewpoints.
So if molecules are galaxies, if animals have souls, if the Earth &/or Sun are conscious living creatures, if water is sentient, etc -- all this and more are phenomena that science can't answer today. Same w/divine concepts; using science to tackle them is like using a speedometer to measure someone's emotions. Wrong machine, wrong device, and ultimately wrong approach.
ps: After I submitted this comment, the machine couldn't accept my post bc my homepage listed didn't have http in front. What a great analogy for how framing affects what we can accept as input!! A little less strict parameters on the input data @ more flexibility on the results -- but some data don't fit our requirements.