[Varda]

It's very different. The investigations into gravity are investigations into proximate causes. Divine purpose and arguments about it are investigations into the first cause; the classic definition of theology. One is known by demonstration and the other is known by faith. Knowing how gravity (or evolution etc) works says nothing about the metaphysical origins of their existence. They're simply not asking the same question. You seem to be claiming that accurate descriptions of physical phenomena will somehow magically transform the beliefs of many. This will certainly happen to those few who believe that scripture is a science book. For most, science is only asking and answering how things work. The why is answered somewhere else.

[Physicist]

Look again at Weinberg's contentious quotes:

I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.

and

I think that part of the historical mission of science has been to teach us that we are not the playthings of supernatural intervention, that we can make our own way in the universe, and that we have to find our own sense of morality.

He's not talking about the ultimate cause behind the creation of the universe. He's talking about the chain of events within the universe. Proximate causes, in other words. Fair game.