Indeed ModelBreaker. Then he asserts that, as a scientist, he has "no need of the 'God' hypothesis"....
Scientists don't, when they do science. All they need is calipers, methodology, and math. With just that, they can determine the amount by which we are uncertain about the truth of any given proposition and how uncertain we are about the uncertainty. Of course, that's not God's perspective; so God really doesn't play a role in science, unless one is testing the God hypothesis, itself. That's why science is fundamentally amoral.
Where scientists can go wrong is when they begin to make pronouncements about philosophy and values, as scientists. In that case, they are just like anyone else: The values they bring to the table are only as good as the values they bring to the table. Sometimes good and sometimes not so good--Stephen Pinker being a great example of the later.
When scientists start trying to derive values scientifically (or slide them in thru resort to their AUTHORITY as scientists), we're back to the Sin of Adam. IMHO, there is no such thing as a scientifically derived or supportable value. One can make a statement such as, "Sexually promiscuity in a marriage leads to a 50% higher probability of divorce"--probably roughly a true statement. That sounds like a scientifically supported value statement about the undesirablity of promiscuity. But its value content depends on on the value one places on not getting a divorce, which is not, in this statement, scientifically derived. If you then gather evidence about the effects of divorce, you introduce new, and unscientific, values in an endless recursion.
The scientific method and its accomplishments are magnificent achievements. But we know there are limits to what science and math can know (see LaPlace, Turing and Goedel, e.g.). Simply put, science and math cannot speak to many "scientific" issuse (the orbital trajectory problm r9 spoke about earlier), let alone speak to values or morality. It is only when science and values get confabulated--often intentionally--that things go awry.
spunkets agrees with Laplace. God came in person to teach who He was. He didn't leave a trace in the physical world. That's, because he's not concerned with physical attractions. He's concerned with the inner beauty of the spirit.
from a conversation between Laplace and Lagrange, mediated by Napolean...
Napolean: How is it that, although you say so much about the universe, you say nothing about it's creator?
Laplace: No Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
Lagrange: Ah, but it is such a good hypothesis: it explains so many things!
Laplace: Indeed Sire, Monsieur Lagrange has, with his usual sagacity, put his finger on the precise difficulty with the hypothesis: it explains everything, but predicts nothing.
What did God promise? It was eternal life. Is that to be found in nature, or in Him? Here's what God said in the matter:
Matthew 12:39
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
No physical sign would be given. His promise of salvation was to be found only by man's recognition and judgement of the Holy Spirit, as a person of beauty and worthy of following. Only through that way can God be known and recognized as the creator. It was His intent, that be so. The physics of this world is the cherubim with the flaming sword that blocks the way to the tree of life.
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.