THAT IS NOT THE POINT! Sorry to shout, but I do get tired of people waving this point about as though I just emerged from my monastic cloister and upon cognition of this fact, I will be struck with its profundity and slink back to my bible study.
The point is that science by definition cannot comment on what type of universe is assumed by science itself. Because science is concerned with empiricism and empirical observations, that in no way allows one to say, "this domain must operate as though the only order of reality is empirical." When confronted by claims of a "miracle" a scientist has two options: S/he can say "this does not belong to my field of study. If it is true, it will have to be verified by some other means than that of my domain." That is a TRUE scientist, who may or may not accept the validity of the miraculous, but is not stupid enough to think that he can define the nature of the universe by his field of study. The charlatan and poseur says that since it cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, then no meaningful statements can be made about it, and we must assume -at least in the lab - that the universe is non-supernatural and that an explanation must be sought for all data which excludes anything extramaterial.
Again, this is not "science" at all but a philosophy posing as scientific endeavor. It might be the prevalent philosophy of science today, but it is philosophy, nevertheless.
It is also pretentious nonsense.
Pot, kettle, black. Where are these masses of scientists who DON'T say, "inexplicable miracles are not my business"? We sure get a lot of stinkin' creationist fellow travelers around here who think scientists are mis-behaving three-year olds who need an epistimological spanking, and arrogate that responsibility to themselves, on the basis of their profound understanding of scientific attitudes obtained from comic books.
What the frack is the difference between:
The charlatan and poseur says that since it cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, then no meaningful statements can be made about it, and we must assume -at least in the lab - that the universe is non-supernatural and that an explanation must be sought for all data which excludes anything extramaterial.
and
When confronted by claims of a "miracle" a scientist has two options: S/he can say "this does not belong to my field of study. If it is true, it will have to be verified by some other means than that of my domain." That is a TRUE scientist,
Maybe there is a difference, on the other hand, maybe this is just a dispeptic bag of wind, and you would, in fact, be making more sense in a cloister than you seem to be managing here.
And a straw man. If that was your point, you were wasting your time, since no-one claims that science disproves the supernatural. It simply hasn't found any evidence of it so far.