God is essentially irrelevant to the science that Davies has tried to explain. I mean no disrespect to Davies, who is a very good writer and an accomplished physicist, but when I learned that his popular-science writing had earned him the Templeton prize, it seemed to me that the intellectual pickings at the interface of science and religion must be pretty slim. Subsequent mailings from the Templeton foundation have reinforced that impression. For example, in the list of directors of the 11 regional centers for its programs in science and religion, I could not find a single physical scientist working at a sectarian institution. Science deals with ideas that are falsifiable.
Religion deals with matters of faith.
It is of vital importance for both fields that they stick to their separate turfs. In principle, they have virtually nothing in common. Whenever organized religion has attempted to dictate scientific ideas, from Copernicus and Galileo to Darwin, it has risked being proved wrong, and thus has diminished its intellectual standing. Similarly, the ultimate arbiters of the origin and evolution of life will be biology and perhaps astrophysics, not theology. By the same token, the moment that scientists attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, or divine purpose, they have stopped being scientists.