don't know about this either... i mean, was "god" necessary for the explanatory projects of 13th century science? there are always holes in scientific explanation and some scientists, i would venture in all centuries, chose to fill that hole with (a) god (the oft-repeated einstein quote about god and dice -- though there are better examples), (b) the cheerful optimism that it will all be worked out by future scientists (theory of everything believers), (c) the pragmatic sense that perhaps we do not need to have all the explanations.
note though that yoshie's statement (at least as quoted by joanna) does not restrict itself to the 'explanatory projects of contemporary science[s]'. it said (paraphrasing) that science's virtue is that it makes it unnecessary for *us* (i.e., including the scientific illiterate ;-)) to need a god hypothesis.
a tangential thought: is the god hypothesis (which i do not subscribe to, btw) any sillier than a "lawful universe" hypothesis? because there is some (though not sufficient) "proof" for the latter?
--ravi