Hmm, let's see now:
"Effects of angels on SN-2 reaction mechanisms in apolar solvents"
"Estimating miracle frequencies in Miocene backarc basins"
"A simple proof to Cauchy's second inequality: God Did It"
Or how about this as a general approach:
"God might exist. However, that appears to have no influence in telomeric gene expression in the species Anamargaris Capreii..." (etc etc)
Frankly, I can't see how the hypothesized God would fit into any credible scientific discussion, other than gratifying certain eveangelical types and their cronies...
You must have skipped over the part where I said it would not be necessary to bring God into every scientific statement, much as the director of a play does not need to assert himself in the play just to assure everyone he has a role. As it is, a good many science textbooks make positive statements without qualification. This does a disservice to science. The assumptions with which one undertakes science will necessarily color the interpretation and explanation of evidence. Not all taxpayers are atheists. Apparently a good many of them are tired of footing the bill for strictly atheistic science classes.