: the contemporary, scientific bias against the supernatural: science and faith are separate methods of inquiry, neither of which is qualified to judge the other.

Our culture tells us that the scientific worldview makes miracles impossible. It's either science or belief in the miraculous, either the natural or the supernatural. And we must choose. But that's not so.

Here's the logic of that position. The scientific method begins with a theory which is tested empirically. If the data supports the theory, the experiment is repeated. Only if repeatable evidence supports the theory, is it considered valid. And a miracle is by definition unrepeatable. My friend who was healed of pancreatic cancer didn't get it again, and experiencing healing again, to verify the data. If you cannot walk on water, Peter did not walk on water. If you have not seen the dead raised, Lazarus was not raised. Science makes the miraculous impossible.

How do we respond? With the fact that proper science uses the right method for the subject under study. Researchers don't use test tubes for quantum physics. They don't use telescopes for microbiology. Science itself, the study of the natural world, cannot by definition investigate the "supernatural," any more than you can measure a marriage by a microscope or tell me how much love weighs.

The fact that the scientific method cannot verify the supernatural is the fault of neither. You don't use a cookbook to repair a car or play tennis with a football. You don't use the "natural" to verify or falsify the "supernatural." It's simply the wrong tool for the job.

: the argument that miracles are outdated myths, with the fact that miracles are essential to the Christian faith, not extraneous superstitions.

It's common today to hear that miracles are leftover first-century myths which must be removed from the faith before thinking people will accept it. So Peter's walking on water is simply the principle that God will help us with the storms of life.

How do we respond? With the fact that miracles are essential to the Christian faith, not mythology which can be removed from its message. The very heart of the gospel is a miracle: "if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised, either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" (1 Corinthians 15:16-19).

Miracles are not outdated--they are the essence and foundation of our faith. If Jesus cannot walk on water, the Bible is wrong and our God is not real. We cannot abandon miracles without abandoning the very God we have come to worship today.

: those who have never experienced miracles are by definition unqualified to pass judgment on their existence or nature.

It is impossible for a blind person to experience "red." We can explain color spectra all we like, but the person may continue to reject the existence of color.

Growing up in Houston, my experience would require me to reject completely the possibility of an ice storm. A spiritual skeptic is less qualified to discuss the miraculous than one who has experienced personally the supernatural God.

: the origins of the Christian faith demonstrate its miraculous nature. Look at the beginnings of this spiritual movement. Is it more or less probable that something miraculous sparked it? Is it likely that men who were too afraid of the authorities to stand at Jesus' cross would soon die as martyrs rather than abandon their belief in his resurrection?

That a scattered, frightened group of fugitives would lead a movement which would replace the Roman Empire as the dominant force in the Western hemisphere? That a faith held by just a few hundred would today be cherished by a third of the world's population? Is it more probable that this movement is founded on the lie that Jesus rose from the dead, or on the truth of his resurrection and divinity?