Religion and God belief preach: "Science is like a metal detector on a beach—it’s great at finding coins and bottle caps, but it will never detect a message written in the sand. That doesn’t mean the message isn’t real—it means the tool isn’t made for that kind of thing."
Of course it can detect the message...
They are trying to divorce meaning from science so that they can say, "We are about meaning, science is about testing. There is no conflict - just different goals."
THE ARGUMENT
Science keeps looking for the natural, even, hypothetically, in the face of a real miracle. It says it does not know, or it comes up with a natural explanation.
This can be seen as implying, "God, if you are there and you are sending a wonder and a message, we prefer the natural."
If the miracle is one that is supposedly central to faith and morality, such as the resurrection of Jesus, then science is tacitly denying it.
Plus, if hypothetically, science could verify a miracle, any miracle, it needs to put checks and tests in place to ensure that whatever did the miracle is not tampering perfectly secretly with experiments. It would collapse if it started doing that.
A miracle surely would expect to be valued not ignored or dismissed. Science lends it no value.
You may do your science and get results. Can you imagine getting something which makes you argue that the existence of God must be unlikely? Can you imagine a result that rules out the action of God?
If you say your findings show there is or is no God, or that we cannot tell, then what? People say that you are making an inference, and it is not the findings telling you anything about God. It is you. It is your opinion or belief. Even if you are a scientist, this is your inference and opinion, and it is not science but perhaps theology or philosophy. No inference gets scientific credibility just by being voiced by a scientist.
Seems fair. But how right are they? It is not science to argue against, “Some finding might show there cannot be any divine or supernatural power.” Science is about testing and getting on with it, and refusing no task.
Many admit that finding something has no natural explanation and saying it must be God’s work indeed conflicts with science. How? Because it makes out that religion is threatened if science can fill the gap, and strengthened when it cannot. Also, it is not evidence. Lack of evidence for the natural means you are guessing if you say it must be God. Guessing is the polar opposite of testing.
Remember, we said that if there might be a natural explanation, we have to keep searching for it. What if the explanation is supernatural? Who says it is going to be just supernatural? There could be more natural involved in it than supernatural. So even then, you focus on the natural. If there has to be a choice, that is what goes in the peer journal, not the supernatural.
Should we keep searching for the natural if, hypothetically, we know it cannot apply? Yes, if it is true that science is about checking and re-checking and avoiding anything that injects opinions.
You will be told that science cannot tell you why we exist when we might not, or why we have the natural laws we have instead of others, or if our lives and existence have ultimate value.
FINALLY
Scientists can guess and make theories, but these are necessary, for you have to start somewhere. But the method is testing and testing and testing. It is about evidence ultimately, and what it points to. God is accepted by nobody as a starting point! That says it all.
If some claimed miracle or supernatural event is dealt with by scientific testing, the science means you keep testing and testing, as in looking for a natural explanation. You may never find it, but that does not mean it is non-existent. If it might be there, that is all you need to do to justify searching. Science is a search for the natural.
Some say this is wrong, for it is a bias against God and his miracle powers. Scientists may answer that God doesn’t have to be involved. It will not say that he might be. Believers want them to say that. Even if those believers are like Jesus, God incarnates, they will not get a hearing.
FINALLY
Science’s method excludes the supernatural by design, which can be seen as indirectly denying its reality—even in the face of a potential miracle.
This exclusion creates a bias, especially when miracles with deep moral or theological significance (e.g. the resurrection) are treated as unworthy of scientific consideration.
Claims about God's existence based on scientific findings are inferences, not scientific facts—regardless of who makes them.
Science is committed to testing and natural explanation, not to drawing theological conclusions—positive or negative.
Interpreting the absence of natural explanation as proof of God is guesswork, not evidence, and therefore unscientific.
Even if something is supernatural, it might still have natural elements, so science stays focused on what is testable.
Science remains silent on ultimate questions—such as why we exist or whether life has meaning or value.
The scientific method starts with testable ideas, not divine premises, which reflects the method's limitations, not a denial of God.
When science investigates miracles, it does so by looking for natural causes, and keeps looking—even if none are found.
Some view this as unfair bias, but it’s how science maintains its objectivity and avoids personal belief in its processes.