It's interesting that you say this, for this is exactly what is recommended to be done, if not actually done. It's not that God is excluded from consideration as an explanation for the existence of things, it's just that in order to study how things relate to, and affect each other, we have to start from the point where God has left off.
Now here, from earlier in the same post, these are also your words.
"Having scientists demand that God not be considered as even existing is excluding God from the debate. Same as demanding that even if He did exist, He does not play any role in nature now."
Essentially, what we do these days is to avoid the flowery and pious phraseology of a bygone era, in order to more simply and directly get to the point.
"By the Grace of God, and the Mercy of His Provenance, we assemble here to examine the deceased carcass of Drosophila Melanogaster, which being the sad remains of a dutiful servant of the Lord."But I would not altogether suggest that God has entirely left the playing field. By my lights, the last time God left a possible fingerprint was but a few years ago, as he and a researcher were having a quiet walk on the beach.
That researcher came back from his walk with the image of PCR seared in his mind, and the world of DNA research has not been the same since.
“By the Grace of God, his holy Protein X interacts with the sacred DNA sequence Y to transcribe gene Z in response to hormone A, so long as God wishes it to be so, under the observation of his humble servant, in accordance with God's will”.
Was my rather unimaginative attempt.
But I like your...
“By the Grace of God, and the Mercy of His Provenance, we assemble here to examine the deceased carcass of Drosophila Melanogaster, which being the sad remains of a dutiful servant of the Lord.”