For all the Bible believing bloggers who insist that belief in miracles can be based on evidence, I would like to suggest the following hypothetical:
Imagine sitting on a jury in a murder case. Three witnesses testify that they saw the defendant shoot the victim three times in the chest. These witnesses testified at great personal risk because the defendant is a powerful man in the community. They also testify that there were twenty other people in the room who saw the shooting. (For this last point we have to assume that the judge doesn't understand the rules of evidence.) On the other side of the coin, an expert testifies that ballistic testing shows that the bullets in the victim's body could not have come from the defendant's gun. The bullets in fact match a gun belonging to another person who was at the scene and gun powder residue from that gun was found on the other person's hand.
If I were sitting on that jury, I would vote to acquit. Ballistics experts are highly confident in the techniques that are used to establish whether a particular bullet came from a particular gun (at least they always are on TV). I might not be able to explain why all three witnesses identified the wrong man as the shooter, but I believe that the witness is much more likely to be wrong than the science.
If, on the other hand, I were a Bible believing Christian, I suppose I would have to vote to convict. As convincing as the science might be there could have been some supernatural agent that altered the bullets so that when they were tested they appeared not to come from the defendant's gun. After all, if I am convinced that the laws of nature were suspended two thousand years ago based on stories recorded decades after the fact just because I believe that the ultimate source of those stories was eyewitness testimony, how can I doubt the testimony of eyewitnesses that I have heard directly? Wouldn't it just be anti-supernatural bias that would cause me to prefer the science of the ballistics test to the testimony of the eye witnesses?
It seems like every week or two I hear some story about a man being released from prison because DNA testing that was not available at the time of his conviction now shows that he could not have committed the crime. Often the man had been convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony. I wonder how many Bible believers read these stories and worry that naturalistic presuppositions which favor science over eyewitness accounts might be putting dangerous criminals back on the street.