No place for God in science

World renowned physicist, Dr. Stephen Hawking, has come out with a new theory about the origin of the universe: God had no part in it.
This is evidently a departure from earlier views that God didn't need to intervene in the creation of the universe, known as the "Big Bang" Theory. Now, the doctor states unequivocally that God did not create the universe. Period.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." he is quoted as saying. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing..."
One question, Dr. Hawking: If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then how could any law have existed at that time to substantiate your theory? The law of gravity exists as a result of the creation of the universe, our solar system and, ultimately, planet Earth. It evolved consequent to the evolution of the universe.
Besides, the "law" of gravity was established by man to explain why things that go up always come down. Of course, we know that the law of gravity does not apply in parts of the universe were gravity doesn't exist.
Gravity is the result of atomic forces relating to the Earth's atmosphere, the rotation on its axis, the orbit of the moon, and earth's orbit around the sun. Without all of those elements, gravity wouldn't exist here, and there would be no law.
I think what Dr. Hawking was trying to say is that the law of gravity is proof that spontaneous events occur in the universe.
No doubt.
But how can anything spontaneous--any event at all--happen out of nothing? There would have to have existed some forces to create the bang that created the universe; atomic or chemical forces, at least. But if there was absolutely nothing before the bang, then how can a spontaneous bang even occur?
Nothing is nothing, until it becomes something. And how does that happen? From creation, either man-made or natural.
Something had to have created the Big Bang, but what? If there was nothing before the bang, then nothing could have created it.
Except, perhaps, divine intelligence.
But we don't want to admit that the existence of God and His hand in the creation of all things is still a possibility. Sure, we cannot prove that God did create the universe. But we cannot disprove it, either.
Hawking's basis for his new epiphany is a series of new theories about the beginning of the universe.
What?
So, Hawking all but establishes that God had no part in the Big Bang based on some theories.
Hmmm.
The last time I checked, a "theory" is an unproven hypothesis. It is a question without answers yet.
That's what science really is, after all. It is the pursuit of answers to questions. It is a process, a method of obtaining answers to our questions.
Science is not the search for truth or fact; although, occasionally, truths and facts result from the application of science.
The law of gravity, to name one.
But Hawking's latest revelation about God's role in the creation of the universe is based upon a series of new theories. Essentially, then, his conclusion is based upon questions that haven't been answered.
My philosophy about God is rather simple: I don't know for a fact that He does exist, but I don't know for a fact that He doesn't. So, I have chosen to believe that He exists, that He is good and just, loving and merciful. I figure the existence of God will never be established in my lifetime or anyone else's. There are just some things we human beings are incapable of knowing as fact...until the One who created us wants to reveal Himself to us.
God is incomprehensible to us, because our knowledge and understanding are limited to our senses: What we see, hear, touch, smell and taste. God transcends our physical senses, so it is impossible to establish His existence as fact until He reveals Himself to our senses.
And that will likely not be until we are standing before His Great White Throne on Judgment Day.
I, for one, have chosen to be ready for that day by believing in what I don't know for a fact, because I know that mankind could end up being wrong in his assumptions. He usually is.