This is a common question in the debates about science and religion. My answer is "no." A miracle, by definition, must be miraculous, which means it is not explicable by the process we use in science (evidence and rationality).
Philosophers love this kind of question because it gives them loads of opportunities to talk about dead philosophers and how they interpreted the word "miracle." If they can find logical inconsistencies, or slight subtleties of meaning, then they can declare victory for belief in miracles.
Watch Hugh McLachlan perform this "miracle" in an article written for New Scientist: Opinion: Do you believe in miracles?.
THESE days most people think it unscientific to believe in "miracles", and irreligious not to believe in them. But would the occurrence of miracles really violate the principles of science? And would their non-occurrence really undermine religion? David Hume and Richard Dawkins have attempted to answer these questions in their different ways, but I am not convinced by their arguments, and for me they remain open questions.So, it's an open question whether miracles are compatible with science, eh? I wish Hugh McLachlan had given us some examples of miracles that he thinks would be compatible with science.
He's been known to read Sandwalk [Hugh McLachlan on Cloning Humans] so maybe he'll give us an examples in the comments.