"Natural processes" itself is the bastard child of an arbitrary choice of worldviews and has nothing to do with "science."
Science belongs just as much in the domain of the progenitors of modern science as any other. The activities of Kepler, Pasteur, Faraday, and others were NOT done in a wold of "Physical and chemical processes that require no miracles" but in a world where God demonstrated his miraculous intervention into the world every day by supernatural activity of sustaining the world He had made. Indeed, those men viewed science as an investigation of how He governed the world, down to the details.
Your "natural processes" are simply an arbitrary choice of a worldview which ARBITRARILY excludes the supernatural and then tries to pull a sleight of hand to say "science only deals with this, so we cannot operate in a supernatural realm." It is a silly argument, and I am astounded that people repeat the same tripe over and over, as though the lack of empirical measurements of the supernatural means that science must operate from a starting point of naturalism. One does not follow from the other.
Return of Fester placemarker
Absent that your posturings are so much empty smoke. Whether or not great scientists of the past believed that the regularity of nature was sustained by a creator is completely irrelevant to the fact that science's assumption of empirical regularity is what has allowed the startling progress of the last 300 years to be achieved. The assumption of the sustaining deity plays no part in the work or its results.
Certainly, I agree that God sustains the universe and its laws every instant of every day, and that in and of itself is miraculous.
Thus, when I say natural processes, I mean processes governed chemistry and phyiscs, and that involve no violation of their laws.