"Science proposes a cause that is demonstrated to exist; religion proposes a cause that has first to be demonstrated to exist."
This is a point often missed on debate. Creationism can't qualify even as an hypothesis. If you can't demonstrate existence for the cause of your explanation, then you can't move on to anything that follows.
"Religion says X (god) did it--without solving for X."
Again she hits the nail on the head. This is called confirmation bias. You begin at a proposition that you already believe is true and work backwards from everything until you can make it reach your God. Most times it is a stretch at best, at worst it is complete and total dishonesty. You simply can't say that "goddidit" while admitting that you have no idea by what mechanism that was achieved and offer that up as an explanation of anything.
If you have no explanation for your model, you simply don't get a place at the table in scientific discussion.
Sorry creationists.... back to the drawing board with you.