Exactly. The Author clearly states in the beginning of this article that, "If you study the history of science long enough, you realize that you've got to ask two questions about any scientific theory, especially the biggest and most grand of them. What is it? Why was it put forth? The two almost invariably go together. We cannot truly grasp what the theory is, until we understand the motives of those who developed it." This is poppycock.
The truth is that MOST theories are put forth to try to explain something that was discovered earlier, and had no easy explanation. Not for some reason or other coming from faith or the lack thereof. No one goes around trying to disprove God, because persons that understand basic logic know you can not prove a negative. The Author here, therefore clearly ignores that fact in order to try to sell his idea that all non-faith persons (I lump Atheists and Agnostics together as he does!) are actively trying to 'disprove' something. No, that is not the case.

Science: it doesn't settle on a doctrine, but keeps on asking, checking, and testing:
1. http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/05/blockbuster-big-bang-result-may-fizzle-rumor-suggests
2. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25558-rumours-swirl-over-credibility-of-big-bang-ripple-find.html
It's definitely one to watch.

Now what about Inflationary Theory? ... As it turns out, Inflationary Theory shares this, at least, with Multiverse Theory: it was put forth to avoid a fine-tuning "problem," the so-called "flatness problem." ... Inflationary Theory was put forth, in great part, to solve that "problem," a problem that is only a problem if you refuse to infer the reasonable conclusion that the creation of our universe was too profoundly well-orchestrated for it to be put down to a cosmic accident. Inflationary theorists tried to get around the God problem by assuming that all that was needed was a fantastic growth spurt right at the very beginning of the Big Bang that ironed out all the wrinkles so to speak, and ensured that the universe would be, as it is, remarkably uniform, with only a very, very few tiny variations in the distribution of matter and energy. ...

Today let's celebrate the progress of scientific discovery, which has relegated yet another instance in the endless stream of misbegotten "God-of-the-gaps" arguments to the trashbin of history.

Just the news: http://www.space.com/25092-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves-complete-coverage-of-major-discovery.html

An emotionally moving personal angle on the news: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/17/5518346/first-evidence-gravitational-waves-supports-big-bang-inflation

When Ben writes that to understand scientific theories "you've got to ask two questions about [them]...What is it? Why was it put forth?" it's
clear that we're now approaching these matters from the point of view
of someone who doesn't really understand science.
--Paul Boillot

An objection to the theory you know today as "The Big Bang"* is that it was invented by a Catholic priest. People considered to be prominent scientists in their day made that objection.

* The name "The Big Bang" was invented by one of its deniers in order to mock the theory. Mockery, unfortunately, is often heard in supposedly scientific debates. For example, the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory routinely mock the skeptics.

The author of this article assumes that physicists and cosmologists come up with theories in order to "get around (the) God problem."
--Octavo

I disagree. Rather, the author assumes his readers are familiar with historical examples of physicists and cosmologists coming up with theories specifically in order to "get around the God problem". One example is the Steady State Theory. This theory was included in schoolbooks in use by children in the USA at government operated schools (called "public schools") well into the 1970s. This happened despite the disconfirmation of the theory by the 1950s.

The belief in an eternal universe, an Old Universe, is as unscientific as the belief in a Young Earth. Yet only the latter group faces fierce, well publicized open criticism. Perhaps the critics are not so true to science as they claim.

Given his analysis here, I'm shocked!

Fr. Barron,

"My point is that if there's a God, then we can naturally deduce that the laws of physics are so fine tuned because the creator formed them so. thus, the laws of physics are a result of his/her handiwork. if that is true, than the same author of the laws of physics could adjust them if necessary to assure life continues."

That's the beauty of your position: with God, *anything* is possible :)

"thus, if there is a God and he/she created the laws of physics it would naturally seem reasonable that he/she could tweek [sic] them as necessary if needed."

Sure, though one then wonders why everything wasn't created so as to not require 'tweaks'...but that's a minor quibble.

I think your comment is very sensible. I would only add that it is also sensible for a philosopher to use this scientific evidence as a starting point to construct a philosophical argument for creation.

The scientist-as-scientist should never abandon science, but the man-as-scientist can also be man-the-philosopher.