When a person is found dead, you have several possibilities that need to be investigated, is it suicide (did it itself), was it accident (did it happen by pure chance), or was it murder (someone intelligently committed the dastardly deed).
Saying that it has no value to identify the source, though that doesn't tell us the method or the why of it, clearly has real value. It might point us toward the ways things really were done instead of investigating random ways it might have happened with simple chemical reactions, etc. It might guide us to look at the ways any designer might have gone about getting the job done within the rules that apply and the material available.
Thus, with your quoted statement, I disagree totally.
Really? OK, I'll bite. What *specific* testable predictions can you make about *any* major scientific question by assuming a creator deity? What insight does it give to questions about the origin of life, for example? How *would* a designer have gone about it? Guess what? Nobody knows that either! In regard to the cosmological constant, how *would* a designer have fine tuned it? Again, nobody knows. How would the assumption of a designer affect the investigations into *any* scientific question?
In contrast, knowing whether a death was due to murder or suicide immediately leads to the next question: who or why? And it even gives ways to address such questions. If it was a different person, they would have left a trail, had a motive, etc. If it was suicide, we can ask about their mental state, and find out something.
