I'm a member of a facebook group devoted to the discussion of global warming. It was probably a mistake to join, since the discussion is quite jejune.
Here is an example. A poster writes: "Prove that God is not responsible for global warming."
Assume theism [of some fairly traditional peoples-of-the-book sort] for the sake of discussion here.
Now abstract a bit and consider ANY statement of the form "why is X happening?" where X is some observable event in time and space. Either you believe that "God so decreed" is an adequate answer or you don't.
If you do believe that to be an adequate answer, then you have rejected empirical science altogether, because science is all about assigning observable causes to observable effects.
On the other hand, if you do not believe that to be an adequate answer, and you press on for a better one, then you have accepted the scientific enterprise, and the challenge of the form "Prove that God is not responsible for X" is simply meaningless.