http://creation.com/materialist-defence-of-bible-fails
"Can ‘supernatural’ events occur, or not? Doesn’t science rule out the supernatural? Well, no, it doesn’t. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Laws of science merely describe things that happen, and those things would happen whether scientists have formulated a law about it or not. It is not our scientific laws that cause things to happen the way they do. Similarly, scientific laws cannot prescribe what cannot happen. Our laws of science can no more cause or prevent something than a map can affect the shape of a coastline. ....
Science is limited. It deals with things that can be repeatedly observed and measured. But a miracle, by definition, is a ‘one-off’ sort of event not subject to repetition at will. There are many things, for example historical events, such as Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, which are beyond the scope of science to either prove or disprove. We cannot directly observe or measure things that occurred in the past, so they cannot be scientifically proven. There are other standards of proof—courts of law have various standards of legal proof, and historians have various standards of historical proof, and in these standards eyewitness accounts from credible witnesses carry enormous weight."
Of course it does, and Ham implicitly recognized this in debate by claiming that secularists had "hijacked" science.
No, "securlarists" did not "hijack" science.
"Secularists" invented natural-science, aka "science", as we know it today, and "secularists" do and will define precisely what the term "science" means -- not Ken Ham.
By law of the United States, Ken Ham is not allowed to define the word "science".
By law, Ken Ham must accept the definition of the word "science" which he (not "secularists") is so desperately hoping to hijack.
Now, PATRIOT1876, in the example you cite, of a miracle, the correct scientific response is not to say: "yes, that is a miracle of God".
Instead, the scientific response is to first describe the events, to the best of verifiable facts, then attempt a natural explanation for whatever might be identified as "natural".
For all the rest, for the "miracle" part, science responds: "we have no explanation".
That's it.
That's what real science does.
Any attempt to mix miracles in with science renders such explanations no longer "science".
Now they fall into some other category, such as theology, religion, faith, etc.
PATRIOT1876: "We cannot directly observe or measure things that occurred in the past, so they cannot be scientifically proven.
There are other standards of proof—courts of law have various standards of legal proof, and historians have various standards of historical proof, and in these standards eyewitness accounts from credible witnesses carry enormous weight."
Doubtless you understand that science itself makes no claims of "laws" or "proof" regarding subjects like evolution, origins of life or of the Universe itself.
There are few-to-no mathematical theorems or repeatable experiments which can be run on such things.
Instead, science there consists of confirmed observations (aka "facts"), testable hypotheses, and/or confirmed theories.
"Descent with modifications" and "natural selection" are confirmed observations, aka "facts".
Evolution of life is a confirmed theory.
Various ideas about natural origins of life are unconfirmed hypotheses, some testable, others not so much.
And that is as close as science ever gets to "truth" in these matters.
Any other ideas, such as suggestions about God's creative powers, are simply not scientific, and will not be included as natural "science" in science texts.
Bottom line: this whole "debate" is simply about understanding where the dividing line is drawn between "science" and "not-science" -- whether "not-science" is theology, philosophy, religion, metaphysics or what-have-you.
As soon as that line is clearly understood, then most of the current "debate" goes away.