Your question shows your openness (rather lack thereof) for any evidence. When you put REAL in quotations, you're qualifying scientists. For instance, Michael J Behe is a renowned Chemist, yet his work in biochemistry and evolutionary mechanisms led to a theory of intelligent design. Would you consider his theories and observations as evidence for an intelligent designer?
Moreover, your question shows an ignorance to what science really is. Science is the discipline of using the scientific method. This requires something to be testable and reproducible. Astronomy, forensics, and history are not sciences as nothing observed can be tested/reproduced. The best we can do is look at recorded observations and come to theories.
Science (itself) comes from a philosophy and logic. Without philosophy and logic, we wouldn't have science. A person can use both philosophy and logic to reason for the existence of God based on the historic observations. It is difficult to jump from historic observations to the Christian God with out looking at documented history and religious texts, but looking at the creation of the universe, we can postulate that some external force stated the creation of the universe. Given that the universe shows evidence of fine tuning, it's reasonable to say that there's intelligence behind it.
So, in your world, you might reject any evidence for a god as well as reject any scientist who postulates a god, but that doesn't mean that there isn't evidence for god. It just means that you're limiting options to hold a worldview.