Note that there isn't any room for God in science, nor is there room for an invisible Purple People Eater that created the universe either. The fact is that science is a naturalistic explanation of the universe, and the idea of any supreme creator is simply not naturalistic. Nor is it repeatable. Provine's statements are an extension of that argument, but are simply his opinion, and I don't consider that it speaks for anyone but himself, considering that he doesn't logically explain himself (unless you would care to provide some sort of context).
See science can't say anything about a creator, at least at this time, because there never has been any evidence pointing to a creator, and because of the logical difficulties in have someone or something creating the universe (i.e. who created the creator, the "Its turtles all the way down" argument).
I concur with Bird [the author he's reviewing] on two of his major controversial arguments. I agree with him that evolution and other prevalent theories of biological and cosmological origins properly belong in science classrooms. [Later in the article he explains why, and it's most definitely not because he sees any value in creationism.] I teach an evolution course for non-majors in biology at Cornell University, and I begin the course advocating creationism in lecture and in the readings. Later, I advocate theistic evolution along the lines of so many religous thinkers from the time of Darwin to the present. Only later in the course do I become a modern evolutionist arguing that the evolutionary process exhibits no sign of purpose whatsoever.That last paragraph is especially wonderful in this context.[skipping]
How can Bird dismantle the basic truth of evolution by descent? Darwin was able to convince most of his contemporary biologists and educated persons who read his Origin of Species that evolution by descent had occurred. He was far less successful in convincing them that evolution had occurred primarily by his mechanism of natural selection. Since his death, the evidence for evolution by descent has accumulated at a rapid rate until at, the present, the rational evidence for evolution by descent is overwhelming.
[skipping more]
Another element of Bird's intellectual dishonesty is the way he uses citations from evolutionists. He quotes Stephen Jay Gould more often than any other person, so we can take him as an example. Gould has written more about evolution for a wide audience than any other evolutionist of recent times. And he has been wildly successful in attracting attention to the issues in modern evolutionary biology. Bird tries to skewer evolution by descent with quotes from Gould (what delightful irony for the creationists). The problem is that to achieve this end, Gould must be cited in such a way as to distort his meaning about evolution. No one reading Gould would ever come away with the impression that he had, in any of his writings, said anything that cast doubt upon evolution by descent.