How so? He laid out his position quite clearly.
He says its clear god exists, a universal intelligence. Then he says you cant prove or disprove god. If its clear because of the rules and harmony a universal intellgence (his way of saying god) exists, then his later equivocation is wrong. He bases his conclusion god exists on evidence of rules and laws and harmony, then says cant prove or,disprove. His own belief is evidence based, so hes proved it.
Hes trying to backtrack.
My Kaku translation: My science tells me God undeniably exists, but my reputation in my science clique says I can't say what I see with my own eyes.
God of Order? Is that the best he's got? I'm not religious enough to be an atheist.