Taking the miracle out of the miraculous

Rhetorical question: what is the point of a miracle if it is not miraculous and has an explanation that completely excludes the possibility of the supernatural stepping into nature?

Rhetorical answer (I know you've figured this out by now, but I thought I'd provide it): there is none.

Apparently the scientists are claiming that, instead of Jesus walking on water, it is possible that he was walking on (take a seat before you read this) invisible patches of ice. Yes, that is right. Invisible patches of ice. Well...I wonder if Peter knew that when he walked on water out toward Christ?



Here is a snippet of what C.S. Lewis has to say on the topic of miracles:
I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power." He describes the integration of miraculous intervention and the natural world in this way: "It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... And they are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, so that a Nature which had had a different history, and therefore been a different Nature, would have been invaded by different miracles or by none at all. In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. ... The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply "stuck on" and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them."

This quote is from Miracles.

My point is merely that, in attempting to deprive us of the miraculous, science does a serious disservice and focuses our attention on nature itself in a wrong way rather than on the glory of God who is infinitely able to insert Himself into His creation because He sits outside it as Shakespeare sat outside Hamlet.