Thanks. I had a look at her article. There's certainly some overlap, but she seems to have more training in philosophy. She's right to try to show that theism has more explanatory power than naturalism, if she wants to be that kind of wrongheaded theist.

Her problem, though, is that the Scientific Revolution redefined what reason and explanations are. She says "God provides a very powerful explanation for the world we observe," because it supposedly unifies many phenomena by positing something simpler.

The problem is that theism isn't reductive, and it doesn't increase our understanding by adducing a mechanism to show us how the process works. It's like saying trees come from trees, or life comes from life. If that's how "explanations" should be given, there's no such thing as explanation or as progress in understanding nature.

Theism is vacuous as a scientific explanation. That's why scientists don't appeal to God or to miracles. And that's why her strategy is boneheaded.

These are the weird results you get when theists fall prey to scientism.