Deism! huh-yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing Uh-huh

To begin with what is deism really?
Well as I understand it, it is the belief in a supernatural creative force or intelligence, that does not intervene in the natural order of the universe. It also typically implies that such a being would have no particular interest or personal relationship with humankind, much less with individual humans. It also supposes that such a being could be credited with the creation of our universe(for which people are understandably grateful).

Interestingly enough Wikipedia lists this in its article on deism in the opening paragraph.
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth or religious dogma.
Which to me is rather surprising, since most deists I know reject the traditional idea that the mind of god could be known. However, since my point to prove is that deism is so watered down as to be useless, I think that I shall not address the idea that one might glean religious truth from some hidden natural code, as such an idea is prey to all the follies that the dogma of more theistic religions suffer.
On to why I find deism useless.
For one it has a notoriously slippery idea of god. I mean if god is energy one might find him lurking in a lump of coal. If god is love one can find him in everything to a farmer(apologies, Shepard) fucking his sheep, to a baby being born. I can go on and on with these vague definitions and why they are ridiculous and useless. You insert god to usurp the rightful place of far less vague and far more useful words. I don't god you, I love you. I don't want to drink a god drink, I want an energy drink(unless of course it is god-berry king of the juice). And I'm not godified, I'm mystified. I for my money think that the only definition worth anything for god is that of a supernatural deity, perhaps appropriate for our worship.
For another it wants to have its cake and eat it too. It seems(at first glance at least) to straddle philosophy/religion and science. Now some people might call that a bridge, however someone with spread legs conjures a rather less flattering image in my mind. Now we can know quite certainly that it is not a scientific hypothesis, after all there is no supporting evidence. And there cannot be, for if a being does not interact with our material universe, then it can produce no evidence, no bread crumbs leading us to it's existence. Its also very easy to pare away at the idea of deism with Occams razor. If people feel the need to invoke god to explain the origins of our universe, what do we then invoke to explain god? Or is god exempt from such strenuous qualifications of logic as our universe is not? To quote Laplace(a famous french astronomer) as he gave a copy of his works on the movement of celestial bodies to Napoleon. Napoleon had asked him why had not mentioned the Creator in his works Laplace replied: 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là' or in English, I had no need of that hypothesis. How very true.
Just as a side note on the sometimes cozy relationship between deism and organized religion, I find it somewhat contemptible that prizes like the Templeton exist. I mean the sheer joy of the cardinals, pastors,rabbi's and imams and mullahs when a deistic scientist is prepared to say something nice about religion. You can almost see the gears turning as they calculate the advantage of having someone on their side(however nominally) that can speak coherently on physics, or biology.
I assert that if Deism wants to be taken seriously it should subject itself to a bit more rigor. It after all is arguing the positive. To do so requires evidence, I see precious little. I do however see an abundance of science pushing back the territories of what faith can claim, as it expands the boundaries of what it can prove or disprove. It is a small and piteous god than who lives only in the gaps of our ignorance.
So in summary, if god as posited by the deists is more human than not then I must say god is not fitting to revere, or likely capable of creating the universe. And if god is less human than not, then I will say well what possible relevance could such a being have to our lives? If god interacts with the world by now we might have expected to find some evidence of such. And indeed could be considered an hypothesis, to which our reasonable default position would be one of skepticism or non-belief until proof was presented. And if god does not interact with the material universe why then are we speaking of it? God could have no relevance to our lives then, or anything else for that matter.