I am sorry that he didn't create it in such a simplistic manner that men born of the enlightenment could not understand how it was actually created.
This for me is the real tragedy of creationist thinking. The universe which science is slowly discovering, and refining its understanding of is mind-bogglingly, spectacularly amazing - from the insane behaviour of the quantum world, to the incomprehensible vastness of the expanding hypershere of space-time, to the mundane wonder of reproduction and (yes) evolution. These are truly, truly amazing things.
If, (as I know you are), you are a person of faith, then a God who has created something like the universe as we are coming to know it, would be something so much more spectacular than a God who waved a wand and created a talking serpent in a magic garden. The universe is genuinely something of which to be in awe. (Not that we don't try to lift up the bonnet (hood) and have a look at the engine to try to figure it out - but, hell, I'm still in awe of it). I wouldn't be in awe of a magic garden - I would feel so cheated by one, compared to the true majesty of what actually happened to create the universe.
In your quotation above, you berate science for not being able to understand a creationist universe, because it is not simple enough for science to understand. It is not possible to get something more the wrong way round than that.
I'm doing this from my iPad, so I won't try quotations. But reading your posts, have I got this right - do you discount any scientific theories, observations or conclusions which cannot be observed with the eye ?