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.
"understanding as a consequence of "impersonal" laws acting over billions of years"
This has been argued before. His use of the term "impersonal" as a modifier lays a theological constraint on the word "laws". "Impersonal laws" is a metaphysical assertion. Tell me exactly how he has demonstrated that the laws are "impersonal"?
"we are not the playthings of supernatural intervention"
Again how does one demonstrate through the proximate causes of the physical universe that something supernatural is not using us as a plaything?