>When science investigates a puzzling event (either an "origins" event long
>ago, or a more recent event such as an unexpected healing), science cannot
>determine whether or not that event was supernatural. What _can_ science
>do? It can try to determine, to the best of its abilities,
> --what the conditions were before the event,
> --what the conditions were after the event, and
> --what effect known natural mechanisms could have had during the event.
>
>(Note: I use the word "event," but it could also refer to a series of
>events spread over time, such as macroevolution.)
>
>As scientists study the initial conditions, final conditions, and
>known natural mechanisms, they could reach three possible conclusions:
>
>1) Sound empirical models predict that known natural mechanisms can
> account for the event. (*1*)
>
>2) We do not have sound empirical models, but we believe that known
> natural mechanisms can account for the event, and future improvements
> in empirical knowledge, elegant models, and computing power will
> eventually allow us to prove this.
>
>3) No known natural mechanisms could account for this event. (There are
> empirically sound reasons for ruling out all known natural
> mechanisms.)
The miraculous aspect may be the timing and/or locale of the event. Should
that be explicitly stated in your definitions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148