A miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature, so science cannot rule miracles out in advance.

This is a logical argument, so it stands as its own claim. The common objection is that miracles break the laws of nature, and that a scientific person therefore cannot accept them. That objection deserves its strongest statement, and then an answer. The answer is that a law of nature describes what happens when nothing interferes. It is a report about the normal course of events, not a fence that forbids anyone from acting. If an agent adds a new factor, the outcome changes without any law being broken. This does not prove that any particular miracle happened. It only removes the claim that miracles are impossible before the evidence has even been examined. Hume also made a second, evidential argument, that testimony to a miracle can never outweigh our uniform experience of nature, and that is the part skeptics actually lean on today. The reply there is that uniform experience is exactly what is in question when a witness reports an exception, so the argument assumes what it needs to prove; the evidence for each case still has to be weighed on its merits.