And we do that already. But we also try to understand how life was in the past, and how it has changed over time. We look at distant galaxies to understand how the universe at large works. And guess what? The hypothesis of God doesn't help *at all* in understanding anything.China knows where a lot of stuff is made yet they take it a part and try and learn from it and try to reproduce it.
Just because God made stuff doesn't mean we can't try and learn about it.
For example, even if you assume that God did it all, we still can look at the evidence and say that the universe was hotter and denser in the past than it is now. We can also say that at one point it was hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen. So, even with the God assumption, the Big Bang still happened.
In regard t life, we still know that there was bacterial life only about 3.8 billion years ago. We also know that there were no mammals 500 million years ago. We still know that species change over time. So, even with the assumption that God did it all, we still know that evolution happened.
We also know that there was no life on Earth before about 4.1 billion years ago because the conditions on the Earth didn't allow it. So sometime before 4.1 and 3.8 billion years ago, we know that life got started. Furthermore, we know what chemicals existed at that point and how those chemicals combine to give more complicated chemicals that are relevant for life. So even if God did it all, we still would study *exactly* the same things we are now about how life began.
The point? The assumption that God did it all leads to no understanding of the processes. It leads to no experimental results. It leads to no theoretical results that are testable. In other words, it is *useless* as a scientific hypothesis. And that is why science can ignore the issue entirely.