No, miracles do not in any way break natural laws. Here’s how.
The laws of nature are not prescriptive–like moral laws. Gravity does not suggest how things should be, rather it’s a term referring to something that is either found true of nature or it is not. Gravity is never broken, at least, not without intruding upon it from outside an otherwise ‘closed system.’ If we are talking about a vaccuum-sealed, airless room, that would be a literal closed system. And in that room, a bowling ball and a feather are suspended on a platform. Pull that platform away and the bowling ball and feather are naturally affected by gravity, having the same force, pulling them the same speed, at the same time, bringing them to the ground simultaneously. That is a good old-fashioned lab experiment, closing the system so that extraneous influences and effects can be minimized. Would a puff of air into the vacuum “break” the law of gravity? Not at all, it would just be an intrusion upon that closed system. If the door were left open, or the feather were tied to a rafter above the ceiling, or powerful magnetic fields were beamed in there from a machine outside the one-way glass walls–all of these would intrude on the “closed” aspect of that system.
Now the laws of nature such as Newtonian forces, quantum principles, einsteinian theory, biological inferences (evolution, mating patterns, etc.) describe observed patterns of nature that are reliable so long as the system in question remains closed.
But what if you open the top of the box, exposing the system? Well that’s what miracles are and the laws of nature are no longer describing that system. It does not “break” the laws of nature since they only describing closed systems, not open systems.
One has full liberty to believe that miracles don’t happen, but it does no good to point out the regularity of nature, or describe natural laws since theists have every reason to believe that nature operates in regular reliable and lawful patterns. But there is nothing in nature that demands there only be a nature, only this system, closed, with nothing outside it. Science never even spoke to the brute possibility/plausibility/intelligibility of a supernature. But this metaphysical naturalism and its remarkably hard to prove. Usually, the metaphysical naturalist does not even attempt to prove naturalism but rather assumes it and demands that the theist shoulder the whole burden of proof. Nevermind that naturalism is the stark minority position, never mind that there are thousands if not millions of miracle claims, never mind that closed systems themselves require an explanation, never mind that nothing of nature is known to be able to cause itself–not the parts of nature, much less the whole of nature). Instead, by demanding that theists give (natural law) scientific proof of miracles, or a material and natural demonstration of an immaterial and supernatural ‘god,’ the naturalist merely points out that the claim of supernaturalism is different from naturalism, that ‘god’is not non-God, and that if God exists he/she/it would not be nature (or, given pantheism, would be indistinguishable from nature). These are trivial claims.
How then can we solve this ideological impasse? First, we should be clear that there may be natural evidence consistent with a miracle claim, even if supernatural causes cannot–by the nature of things–be directly observed as a natural cause. Second, we should grant that it’s hopelessly circular to define nature as “all that exists.” This is merely defining nature as naturalism, and if there were a supernatural God then he would have to also be natural if he could exist at all; thus nature and supernature are the same, and the terms dissolve into meaninglessness. Third, we must allow that inferences can be made from effect to cause–even if the cause is only slightly known through its effects. People may dispute which of these inferences are sound, but its categorically stultifying to deny that that inference can ever be made coherently. For example, we can infer a killer by his modus operandi, or an Apple product by its logo, or an intelligent designer by (apparently) designed effects. These are partial and imperfect, but still probabilistically valid. Fourth, we must allow that scientific demonstrations are not the only means to truth, knowledge, or inference. I won’t belabor this point but suffice it to say that to assume otherwise is to commit the manifestly discredited assumption of scientism where “science is the only means of knowledge [not counting that very statement which is not itself a scientific product but a philosophical/theological conclusion].”
For more on this subject see the work by Alvin Plantinga, “Where the Conflict Really Lies”