I agree that the supernatural hasn't been scientifically confirmed or that it doesn't pass empirical tests. But I think there's a more fundamental conflict between the scientific values of objectification and the supernaturalist's religious values and culture. On the theological model, the supernatural is profoundly subjective rather than objective (meaning it comes from God). So why should we expect miracles to happen with natural regularity, as though they weren't acts of a divine will?

We're begging the question when we treat miracle claims as empirical hypotheses, and we're making a category error. Miracle claims are myths or allegories about the meaning of events. Lots of modern folks simply don't understand the nature of their religion.

There is indeed a niche for religious scientists to become famous and to make more money from the likes of the Templeton Foundation, just as there's a niche for African American conservatives to become famous and useful in the Republican Party (as mascots).