Yes, he's the one.
I think if you read his paper written at the invitation of a senior physicist from Stanford Research Institute International in 1987, you will find no mention of God.
Or of religion.
It's pure science.
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html
I think if you look at the papers after that, with the exception of one, I think, there is no mention of any religious thing at all. It is pure data, math, and conclusions
http://www.setterfield.org/scipubl.html
I think if you look in the Discussion section, where he answers questions emailed to him, you will find he does not discuss God or religion unless the subject is brought up by the questioner:
http://www.setterfield.org/discussionindex.htm
In other words, your comment that creation science is driven by belief in God is all wet. Data is data. Math is math. If you wish to dispute his conclusions on scientific grounds, great. But I don't think you will have much luck trying to accuse him of sloppy science!