Lewis’s thief analogy fails because the thief is inside nature and obeys its laws. A miracle by definition introduces a cause from outside the system. That’s exactly what “violation” means, and renaming it “a new factor” is wordplay.

The analogy is imperfect in just the way described, and that should be conceded. Lewis’s actual point survives the concession: laws of nature describe what happens given a closed system, and whether the system is closed is not something the laws themselves can tell you. If there is a God who can act, his acting is an input, not a breach, in the same way that human free action is an input into physical systems without breaking physics. The question is whether such a God exists, which science does not settle, and that is what the claim says.