You may be right, but one can still hope that at least those supposedly committed to discovering Truth would be objective.
But we have to look at what are the limits of science?
If an event occurs that is 'unnatural', in the sense that it occurs outside of natural law, then science cannot prove it happened. It can get close to it, but at most can only say that no *known* natural process can account for this event.
But if science does somehow prove that the event occured, then it cannot be a nonnatural or supra-natural event.
For instance the claim that the Universe burst into existance in a fraction of a second, each and every atomic particle of it, would have been said to be a miraculous claim prior to 1910.
But with the establishment of the Big Bang theory as scientific fact, we no longer consider it to be miraculous and only a very impressive, but entirely natural event.
I think we need to revise what we mean by 'miraculous' to include such impressive natural events. To me, the Big Bang is still miraculous, though natural as it points, IMO, to Gods action in the Universe, which is what I think 'miraculous' should be considered to mean
The Shroud's image is explicable now, but still is a unique and very strong circumstantial peice of evidence that Jesus did in fact live, was executed and His Shroud was retrieved from His tomb for some reason within 3 days.
I think that is about as close to proving the Resurrection of Christ through science as we will ever get.