Evidence for God from Science

Hello all. I'm new to this board, and I have a burning question that I think you can help me with. I recently read a book, (God, Time and Stephen Hawking by David Wilkinson, anyone ever heard of it?) that disturbed me a great deal. It's written by a Christian, but Wilkinson basically makes the argument that the cosmological and teleological arguments are comitting the God of the gaps fallacy, and that we shouldn't be using them. He says that God should never be used to explain anything, because a naturalistic explanation could come along and narrow the gaps we put God in. Any comments on this? How would you respond to someone who said that God can never be used in place of a naturalistic explanation? (This book bothered me alot, and I was sort of a tangential doubter to begin with, so I would really appreciate any of your takes on this.)

Ok, when I started this I should have said that I had burning questions as opposed to question, so here's one more. I've been talking to a friend of mine lately who is an atheist, (really debating would be a better word) anyway, this is what he says:

"My philosophical objections seems to be, primarily, that the existence of God is answering a question by raising another question, which tends to lead in circles; it causes unnecessary complexity."

How should I respond to this?

Thanks for any help.

I never read that book. And he was saying that God should never be used to explain anything? I guess sometimes God is used to answer things. And to use God to explain something you would probably have to explain God. And God's complicated. Plus if we use God to explain something and then science comes along and finds another explanation for it, it makes Christians look kind of dumb. Of course they could just say 'God's just testing our faith' or something.

And for the "My philosophical objections seems to be, primarily, that the existence of God is answering a question by raising another question, which tends to lead in circles; it causes unnecessary complexity." I really don't have a good idea of what he is saying but can't pretty much every answer lead to another question?

Why is that rock there? I moved it there. Why did you move it there? It was in my shoe. Why was it in your shoe? I was rocking in the forest; it has a lot of rocks. Why does it have a lot of rocks? Err because, God put them there. Why did God put them there? Because he likes rocks! Why does God- (gets punched in face). Anyway for the Atheist Vs Christians debate pretty much both sides can use this technique.