After reading "the grand design"

Recently I’ve finished a famous book “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking. His book represents beautiful work of him.  His previous books e.g. the brief history of time, theory of everything are very interesting books which easily change the thinking style of reader. But in this book Hawking give me a shock. This shock did not arise from what is in the book but from what is not in the book.
S. Hawking as a great scientist and I’m a student of physics so I have very few knowledge about physics so I can not criticize his work , (That’s why this article is published in this blog and not in newspaper) so this is not criticize but my own perception about this book.

This book is specially focused to verify non existence of god. Although I’m also inspired from atheist point of view this book cannot really touch me. Science is narrowing the boundary of god. But this does not mean that science is going against god. Science however is too much complex today and only few people can understand this but it itself cannot understand nature completely. I remember one priest telling me that scientist cannot show difference between dead and living body, and there are too much natural phenomenon that are still out of boundary from science. Since we have not reached our goal it is hurry to announce that science win and god loses.
Another main difficult point I found in this book is about theory of everything. Since I read about this topic in his another book “a brief history of time” it always attracted me. A theory that can explains everything may exists but now how we can say that we are very near of it? Hawking himself tells about Laplace’s theory of determination. Arrival of quantum mechanics rejected that idea and we feel funny Laplace’s point of view. But how we feel that now we know everything? We are seeking for TOE from decades but it is still far from us. How can we say that these ideas will not reject in some year? At that time TOE or M-theory will be new version of Laplace’s theory.
Another difficult point is his record of history. He has recorded the data of origin of science from Greece only. But he is unaware from the eastern development about science. One example is about astronomy. I sometime surprise by the difference between eastern and western astronomy. Their base is different but the result is same. E.g. eastern called universe “Brahmanda” Brahma+Anda (elliptical) and also “khagol” kha(space) + gol (round). And they called earth as “Bhugol” Bhu (earth) and gol (round). When western believed earth is flat, eastern called it bhugol or round. And they called space as curved. It means western thinkers are proud to know that they discover space is curves but every people in east call it curve (but they don’t know what they are saying and only experts know). So eastern researcher already knew what is new called in science. Another exciting example is about Mahabharat war. Eastern people believe that it was occurred five thousand years ago and now it is proved. How? The war was lasted for 18 days and in the story 27 astronomical signs are included (position of planets and also solar eclipse). And when it was calculated with modern mathematics scientists found that the day back to 5100 years. This means 5000 years ago eastern could calculate astronomical also. But hawking believes that solar eclipse was successfully calculated by Greek first time. How he can neglect the eastern development and only credited western for development of science?
These are few glimpses that I found difficult while reading this book. It may be due to my lack of knowledge. So this is only my point of view. If you have different opinions then you can give comment.