That is a cute way of saying we are to dogmatically rule out in advance the possibility that anything from outside our three-space dimensions plus time universe could ever effect anything inside our universe.
That is dogma, not science. It is true that almost by definition miracles cannot be repeated in the lab, but that does NOT mean they cannot or have not happened. Thay can and have happened, they just cannot be repeated by science. The best science can do is rule out any natural explanations, and then, as Sherlock Holmes said, 'whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is true".
Our universe itself is a miracle from a place beyond its dimensions. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, they can only change form. Right? That is right in our 3D + time universe, but that universe and all the matter and energy in it was created somehow, from somewhere. Hence from the very beginning this idea that something must work according to natural laws or it is impossible is shown to be false. A miracle has happened, the universe has sprung into being in violation of its own natural laws about matter/energy creation. Sounds like there is a place unobservable to us that has higher laws, ergo a 'supernatural' realm.
That is a cute way of saying we are to dogmatically rule out in advance the possibility that anything from outside our three-space dimensions plus time universe could ever effect anything inside our universe.
How many different ways are you going to make me repeat this? Science operates in the material realm. Therefore material explanations are what science is about. Science has no opinion about any flavor of immaterial realm. That is not it's job. In the ordinary course of affairs we do not to take this fundamental limit of science as a failing. If that bothers you, stay away from laboratories & science museums & field digs, & go to church instead--you'll get little mileage insisting that what you learned in church should stand on equal scientific footing with what you learn in the lab or the field.
I won't respond in detail to your last couple of posts because you chewed up way more verbal yardage than I have the patience for to say the same fundamentally incorrect thing over and over.
In no manner has ID or creationism ponied up the disciplined artillary of facts and problems that are forever unapproachable by the current paradigm, to give it the sort of footing, say, Copernican astronomy needed to replace ptolomaic astronomy. Our present take on how things work may, in the end, prove as useless as ptolomaic astronomy, but as long as it seems reasonably useful, we aren't giving it up for a big bag of undisciplined, fact-free wind created by antideluvian tinhats with an obvious agenda, no matter how many big words strung together in profound-sounding vague oratory they produce.