I was reading, skimming more like, this book: Physics and Ancient Religion, a couple of days ago.
This book makes the argument that the whole science of the origin of the universe, from relativity to quantum mechanics, string.brane.loop theory is reconciled better, aka more beautifully, with theism than with materialism (note that I do not have a dog in that hunt, as they say, in fact I think it just might be the exact wrong question...).

Now the way this writer (who clearly has a credible background in the science need for such a discussion) makes the critique of the other argument is to make a real good argument for it, a prima facie case, before embarking on the critique. That way, he is addressing the specifics, the finer points, all that good stuff, in the argument.

It was kind of instructive, know what I mean?

TMW