We can completely agree that the grounding is not in science. But how have you decided what parts of the Genesis account should be taken seriously as indications of God’s actions and interests, and what parts are not? Why should we accept the story that he created humans (twice) as evidence that he was interested in creating humans, while rejecting almost everything about how that happened?
What you have not shown is why “need” is relevant to God’s actions. I’ve made this point more completely in the post just above this.
Agreed. I think you went to more trouble than you needed to in order to show that; one reasonable hypothesis would have been enough.
I appeal once more to Occam’s razor, but I agree that’s all the justification I can possibly have. Still, I think it’s crucial for science. If theology rejects that criterion, it’s an epistemological problem. Of course we disagree on the value of theology as a way of knowing for many reasons, some of them much more fundamental.
There is of course some controversy over whether string theory is science, for precisely the reason you mention.
The reason it doesn’t is that science ignores (or rejects) all hypotheses of divine intervention, including the hypothesis of direct intervention in every event.
Agreed, again unless you consider Occam’s razor as a criterion in science. And of course there is plenty that we don’t currently know and much that I suspect we will never know. I would also maintain that just because science can’t tell us everything is no reason to suppose that theology can tell us anything.