Science does not seem to have a firm position on miracles. There are lots of different ways scientists can legitimately look at miracles and explanations that depend on miracles.
Each of these progressions starts from statements that seem clearly true, and shades gradually into gray areas. At what point, in these slippery slopes, would you draw the line?
1) It is the job of a scientist to…
… try to understand how things would work if there were no miracles involved.
… assume that what they are studying does not involve miracles.
… assume that the natural world works entirely without miracles.
… disbelieve in miracles.
2) It is the job of a scientist to…
… increase the world’s stock of scientific knowledge.
… educate people about science.
… promote awareness of scientific explanations of things.
… promote belief in non-miraculous explanations for things.
… promote unbelief in miracles.
3) The theory of evolution is fundamental to biology, and…
… a non-miraculous explanation for life’s diversity.
… an adequate theory to replace the previous, miraculous explanation.
… a theory that should replace the previous, miraculous explanation.
… a theory that proves God did not create the species.
4) Therefore, scientists should…
… try to educate people about evolution.
… try to convince people that evolution is the best theory we have.
… directly attack creationist (miraculous) explanations