Not quite. In fact I'd almost say quite the opposite. It sounds like the GP is saying that he applies credit to his god for the things that science understands, and suggesting it most likely is his god in the things we don't understand. Which means he can accept proofs, and not let his beliefs stop him from recognizing the proofs. His belief in a god gives him someone to appreciate for how the laws of nature were set/made/came to be.
I tend to agree with this. I'm not practicing any religion. But I do believe there must be a god. each time science learns something new, I credit my God* rather than trying to think of reasons why science must be wrong. No amount of science could make me think there is no god until science proves it. Meanwhile, science is just proving to me how much of a genius this god is.
*Should also point out that I would also credit the individuals involved. Man kind can do it's own thinking.