I talk of God and Miracles in a profound sense. My family background is not Religious in the sense of a tradition or dogma, but neither am I some New Age spiritualist.
I rejected all such things in my youth in favour of Reason and Science.
With age however comes wisdom, the older I get the smarter my Dad's getting, for example.
The "its black or white or your full of hypocrisy" of youth mellows to the realisation of an infinite spectrum of greys.
The indoctrinated in youth, and hence unrecognised for what it is, faith of "Science will provide the answers" gives way to the realisation that not only can some questions not be answered but they really, really, cannot be asked.
There are things which we can never know or understand but for which we should have the humility to simply recognise and give thanks.
So I'm not an atheist but neither am I an agnostic. My sister Diane once said to me, "I don't think there is a God but I'm not going to say there isn't in case there is!" as good a definition of agnosticism as I can come up with.
My attitude would be given that there is so much which we don't know its almost certain that there is some ineffable big picture which explains everything. Unfortunately, being so big and ineffable we never will understand it so don't pretend that you have the answer, either by faith or revelation. I believe the correct defintion of my position is that of a deist. That is, I believe in the concept of the big kahuna but don't recognise the legitimacy of religious organisations, or concepts of a being with which I can have a "personal" relationship.
But, this doesn't provide us with an easy let out. There is a side of us which should always be striving to find and understand ideals, and we should recognise that the subject matter of these is not necessarily open to the methods of science. There is plenty of room for theology in a person's world view even if they are scientists.
However, we must recognise that just because theology isn't science doesn't mean that it is any less rigorous. Theology does not equate to "To thine own self be true" or "If it feels right, do it." Neither is theology studying and learning the dogma of any religious tradition nor is it comparative religious study.
I therefore find myself torn with the creationists. I can't find time for fundamentalists or absolutists on any side so I'm sympathetic with their argument that modern society and politics have substituted science as the mass religion and it is being mistaught itself as the one true faith. The true Scientific Method and true Theology are co-equal disciplines to explore a complex universe. You just have to recognise which is the appropriate tool to use and when. To the man with only a hammer everything is a nail! The results of these misguided craftsmen are unfortunately around us for all to see.
The creationists desire to equate their religious interpretation to science is however equally bad to me as to teach science as a faith. Recognise and honor the domain of each. Its not an issue of which is better, the screwdriver or the hammer, its an issue of what is appropriate to answer the question at hand.
The Theory of Evolution is not a proposition susceptible to proof or disproof by the Scientific Method. Is it plausible to you, as a model does it allow you to make useful predictions about the real world, does it provide a useful guiding principle to you in your life and world? Fine then use it. But its no more a scientific principle than "What Would Jesus Do?"
Does the fact that its not a scientific principle susceptible to proof or disproof by the scientific method make it something which a person should not be allowed to use in their lives? Of course not. The issue is utility. And not general utility, just simply, is it useful to you?