No you couldn't . . .
Well golly gee. Where's that list of scientists who flourished and contributed to science without bringing creationism to the table yet believed deeply in a Creator? One does not have to make the assumption God is not involved in the universe to study it. C'mon. I thought you were smarter than this.
The very fact that the laws of nature are constant over time testifies quite logically to intelligence and design. The only issue science does not need to address is WHO is behind it all. That is for religion to address. But to assume that SOMEONE is beind all this intelligence and design is not at all unreasonable. No, it is far more unreasonable to assume all this intelligence and design came about of "it's own volition." Egads. That is but a frightful absurdity.
But if someone in the scientific community wishes to propose an experiment or test to show WHO is involved in creating the universe, then who the hell are you or I to tell them to shut up? You speak as if the bounds of science must be limited. I think that is an unwholesome thing to bring to the table of education.
That makes no sense. (to me.) What's totally intuitive is that objects with a certain velocity & energy content tend to stay at that state unless acted upon by something else. There's no reason to be surprised by the constancy of constants. IOW, if a constant changes, then the obvious question is what made it change.
The only issue science does not need to address is WHO is behind it all. That is for religion to address. But to assume that SOMEONE is beind all this intelligence and design is not at all unreasonable. No, it is far more unreasonable to assume all this intelligence and design came about of "it's own volition." Egads. That is but a frightful absurdity.
I say that the assumption that there's a someONE behind it all isn't reasonable at all. Everything we know about someONEs tells us that someONEs have histories, and are part of populations, came from parent someONEs, and hold their thoughts in material brains. So indeed if someONE is behind "it all", then either it's turtles all the way down or there exists a turtle of special pleading for some reason.
Now, if there's someTHING behind it all, the conceptual problems IMO are just as unsolvable. But the assumption that it's someTHING behind it all at least follows directly from our observations of the real world, and it doesn't smack of childish anthropomorphization.