What’s the difference between saying that God could have created the Universe, as opposed to undirected natural causes could have created the same? They are both assumptions, they were both unobserved by humans, they cannot be duplicated, and therefore they both fall under the perview of historical science, which operates on the principle of multiple competing hypothesis and inference to the best explanation.
Because there will never be a way to prove or disprove faith. Im agnostic, by the way, so I allow for the fact that I dont know everything and there very well could be a God. Scientific theories can be proven and disproven. The disproven ones get discarded and the proven ones can be refined and improved over time.
Science does not start out with assumptions, at least not accurate science. You are making the assumption that faith and science both fall under the perview of historical science, which is faith.
I just pointed out the incorrect and contradicting data of the article. I didnt mean for this to be some sort of huge debate.