When Newton was doing science his view of God informed his view of science - but he did not presume to include God as the cause of any of his observations.
I also believe that God is a God of order and that the universe can be investigated in an orderly manner to learn more about God, and make useful predictive theories about the universe.
Einstein also assumed that God was a God of order. He wasn't a member of any traditional theology - but he did believe that God made the rules that governed the universe.
The dichotomy you attempt to set up - either God or no-God - is simplistic to the point of being infantile.
Does the Pope also prefer the “no God” explanation?
As to what makes scientific explanations superior to Goddidit explanations - that speaks for itself - and I have repeated it many times. Science is of use. Creationism is useless.
Useful is superior to useless.
Scientific explanations are useful and superior to creationist explanations that are inferior and useless.
The dichotomy you attempt to set up - either God or no-God - is simplistic to the point of being infantile.
What are the other options?
As to what makes scientific explanations superior to Goddidit explanations - that speaks for itself - and I have repeated it many times.
And the problem with God doing it is what, exactly?
How is that worse than nothing did it? IOW, how is *It just happened* a better option than God doing it?