[Dimensio]

If it can't be done, then the assertion of "impersonal laws" by Weinberg is non-falsifiable.

Well, that would make Weinberg's claim nonscientific, which I suppose was the point.

Of course, it comes down to it being Weinberg's opinion. Many theists who accept evolution have said that they believe that the revelations of science have strengthened their faith, so that really just shows that people will derive out of science what they want to see. That won't stop creationists from dishonestly claiming that evolution was created and is promoted to spread atheism, however.

[Fatalis]

Of course, it comes down to it being Weinberg's opinion. Many theists who accept evolution have said that they believe that the revelations of science have strengthened their faith, so that really just shows that people will derive out of science what they want to see.

Exactly so. When I look at the laws of physics, or the origin of species through evolution, I see the handiwork of God. I can make a lot of arguments to support my belief -- aesthetic, scriptural, metaphisical, philosophical, etc. -- but I can't make a scientific argument for it. That doesn't bother me, I can't drive my car across the ocean either. That's not its function.

That won't stop creationists from dishonestly claiming that evolution was created and is promoted to spread atheism, however.

True, but when Weinberg poses as a scientist while asserting impersonal laws, he puts gas in the tank of those creationists and they head for the coast . There appears to be a real blindness in science in consistently policing their own when it comes to statements like Weinberg's.