Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Esquilax]

People forget there is more than one method of explanation.  Science can give us the mechanics explanation, the "how" if you will, but it cannot answer the why.

Your objection assumes that there is a "why?" or purpose involved.

 Suppose I put it like this:

I present to you the internal combustion engine.  Now I give you two choices, the laws of thermodynamics and Henry Ford.  You need both.  Just because you can can explain how something works does not remove the need for the agent that made it work.  We can explain every single detail of an internal combustion engine, but that does not mean the intelligent mind of Henry Ford did not exist.  As a matter of fact it is because of the sheer complexity of that engine we must assume a mind behind it.    

And now, let's put it a different way, one that accurately represents what your actual beliefs are on the matter.

I present to you the internal combustion engine. Now I give you two choices: the laws of thermodynamics and Slunchy, the spirit octopus who makes engines work. You need both. Just because you can can explain how something works does not remove the need for the agent that made it work. We can explain every single detail of an internal combustion engine, but that does not mean the intelligent mind of Slunchy did not exist. As a matter of fact it is because of the sheer complexity of that engine we must assume a mind behind it.

You can't give two choices where both choices are demonstrably real things and still accurately represent your religious beliefs, dude. In order to be accurate, one of the choices needs to be completely unverifiable and undemonstrated, that might not even be possible, that works via an equally undemonstrated and potentially impossible mechanism. Hence, Slunchy; if I offered you the real choice, would you assume you needed Slunchy for engines to work?

No? So why should I assume your god? Don't mention complexity, that's begging the question because you're assuming that complexity must be designed, making the entire argument circular. We know that complex things can arise naturally; the fact that you baselessly assert that no, actually your god must be involved in this seemingly natural process, without evidence, is not an argument.