Religion and science are in a peculiar tension, because they have an asymmetric dependence relationship. Some fundamental metaphysical presuppositions of science are religious in origin. At the same time, science questions these religious assumptions.To see this tension at work, consider miracles and their relationship to laws of nature.The Christian doctrine of creation holds that an intelligent creator designed the world, according to intelligible and orderly laws. This conception of the world as governed by laws that are discoverable by human minds inspired natural philosophers in the early seventeenth century, such as René Descartes, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton, to formulate their mechanistic conceptions of the world. Some natural philosophers, such as Bernard Nieuwentyt and John Ray, believed that experimental science provided clear evidence for divine design: it shows how ingenious and intelligently designed the laws of nature are. However, an unintended consequence of this line of thinking was that miracles -a central element of Christian doctrine, for instance, in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth -had become all but impossible. Miracles constituted, per definition, a violation of the laws of nature, although there were minority views such as Samuel Clarke's that saw miracles as merely surprising or unusual. The laws of nature were exceptionless. This gave rise to an unstable conception of miracles as events that violated immutable laws of nature (Harrison, 1995). As a result, miracles became improbable, and the testimony to such events highly suspect, exemplified in David Hume's (1748) argument against miracles.The Fall narrative provides another example of how science undermines the religious