[[I hate to use the word “miracle,†except as another word for evidence, or sign that leads beyond present science, or even contradicts it.]]
I agree- the word to use is ‘Supernatural’- if somethign simply is not possible naturally, then if it is present, it must have come about supernaturally- Evos try to claim nature is capable of supernatural acts (although they deny it’s supernatural, and wave it away by exclaiming ‘we just don’t know how, haven’t discovered how the thing could have occured yet’, but the reasonable mind will conclude there is enough biological, and chemical evidence to point ot the need for a supernatural intelligent designer- to come to a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion. When enough evidence is presented to show that something had to occure via a supernatural act, it hten becoems unreasonable to keep claiming nature was capable of violating it’s own precepts and principles. There MUST therefore be another explanation- but evos are loathe to ceede that nature is incapable of creation, and that a supernatural intelligent designer caused the acts.
I think that all things are possible. I don’t think that scientists ought to contend that they or the methods they use are the only ways to know things. Karl Popper, whose has such authority among them, would only accept scientific knowledge, would only consider theories that are “falsifiable,” That certainly doesn’t include evolution, or at least what it says about the origins of life. I’ ve
noticed that materialists keep returning to their vomit and then throwing up as fact what has constantly been shown to be full of difficulties. A hundred years ago, vitalism was current because material simply did not compute. Well, that approach had its faults, but I think that if men like Bergson were to look at the facts in evidence, they might comes up with another alternative but they would still see the limitations of evolutionism.