The real difficulty science has with answering the God-question is in testability.
To test a pair of hypotheses, you have to find a situation wherein the results of one hypothesis would be different from the results of the other hypothesis.
For example, creationists often marvel at how perfectly suited the planet, its location and its chemistry are for supporting life, and conclude that this perfection of placement and condition belies the work of a divine Creator.
This argument implies that a world that is
not perfectly placed is
not the work of a divine Creator. Therefore, can’t we conclude that God did not create Mars, Neptune and Io? And, the creationist answer is, of course, No: God created everything.
Thus, we have no idea what something God didn’t create would look like, so we have nothing to compare God’s work to. So, the truth is that this test cannot answer the question of whether God created something or not, because it provides no way to compare God with not-God.
I would personally be okay with their perfection argument
if they would accept the conclusion that God did not also create imperfection (i.e., if they would agree that, if Earth's "perfection" is proof of God, then Mars' "imperfection" is proof of not-God). But, of course, they will not do this: they will insist that a test can provide positive evidence, even when it is fundamentally incapable of providing negative evidence.
This is why science does not deal with God: because nobody will commit to a description of God and His works that is testable, and then accept the results of the test.
Edited by Bluejay, : infinitives, an important English grammatical construction
-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2