And if you'll give it a little thought, the phrase "natural processes" also is a veiled attempt to EXCLUDE a creative God from the equation.
BTW: "Mother Nature" doesn't really exist either, however it conveniently sidesteps confronting the idea of a creating and sovereign GOD!
Of course, since that is what the word "science" means: natural explanations for natural processes.
As soon as you say, or imply, the word "God" you are not, by definition, being scientific.
Doesn't mean you are wrong, it's just that science by definition of the word is not allowed to go there.
the_Watchman: "the phrase 'natural processes' also is a veiled attempt to EXCLUDE a creative God from the equation."
You still don't "get it", do you?
There's nothing "veiled" about it.
From Day One of the scientific enterprise that, precisely, has been "the deal" -- science does not ever intrude on, confirm or deny anything outside the natural realm.
So, if you wish to inject God into your world view, then you must do it yourself.
Science will not do it for you -- not now, not ever.
And I'm here to tell you, believe me, you don't want science attempting to define what is, or is not, God or God's Hand, or God's works or anything else having to do with your own religious faith.
That's not the job of science, it's not the function of science, and by definition of the word, it's not "science".
Now, finally, do you "get it"?