[Caesar Soze]

Anyhoot, to answer your question: scientists seem to be welcome with open arms at FR. But it seems to me legitimate science has nothing whatever to do with the "falsification of religious belief."

So you're saying Scotsmen are welcome, but only true Scotsmen? I might regret this, but what do you consider an appropriate activity for science, and what is not? Every facet of human existence, real or imagined, has been subsumed under one religion or another. Inevitably, science is going to falsify some religious beliefs--whether it's the Noahic flood, Quranic ontogeny, or the destruction of the two holy trees of the Valar. If "legitimate" science has no business falsifying any religious belief, there is almost nothing left in the heavens or on earth for science to investigate.

[betty boop]

I might regret this, but what do you consider an appropriate activity for science, and what is not?

Science's mandate is to describe the natural world. It does so on the basis of direct observation. That means it must deal with observables. If something isn't observable (quantifiable, subject to measurement), and isn't susceptible to replicable experiments, then it isn't a subject for science as a matter of principle.

As far as the falsification of religion is concerned, I have not yet encountered anything in legitimate science (see above definition) that actually does this.