The conclusion of many, then, is that God is squeezed out of the picture, that there is nothing but the natural world. But does the success of science by itself provide strong support for naturalism? In this lecture it will be argued that it does not. Briefly it will be noted that the enigma of consciousness, of the conscious self, provides good reason to think that naturalism is not the last word. However, the majority of the lecture will develop the thesis that a key problem for naturalism is the conflating of what I call order-of-nature miracles and specific-point miracles. The former, if there are any, would be miracles that God needs to perform regularly or periodically to sustain the order of nature, the normal functioning of the natural world. The latter are miracles performed at specific points in time for specific purposes. The success of science provides significant support for the thesis that there are no order-of-nature miracles, but a “gapless” order of nature accords well with the biblical teaching about God. And the success of science does not address the question as to whether there are any specific-point miracles. That is a question that has to be addressed by historical investigation. The lecture will conclude by considering and responding to one objection to this thesis.

Dan Barker, many years ago issues a challenge to Christians to take the 4 gospels and build a reasonable narrative of them. Presumably, he feels it is difficult, when in fact, the 4 gospels harmonize nicely without adding any commentary at all. 

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. ...His premise is that the gospels contradict and cannot be reconciled.