Fester why do have this need for God in science class? Sure the judge espouses wholly atheistic, meaning, no mention of God, in science class. What's wrong with that?
Do you need God in gym class? How about math, do they bring up God much there?
No. Therefore math is an "athiestic" class subject. So what?
"athiestic" placemarker.
"Therefore math is an "athiestic" class subject."
Math was atheistic until I got to my Algebra & Trig final in high school. :)
If God is my Creator and sustains every particle of the universe, then I need Him whether I recognize Him or not. As for having the subject of God be introduced at every point of discussion in education, that would be awkward and unseemly. Not even the theory of evolution is so intrusive. (As if I thought you would argue that evolution must be mentioned on every playground. LOL! Only at the monkey bars.)
But you digress. I merely wish to point out that a federal judge has ruled that atheistic science is the only credible science. He apparently feels it is within his qualifications to make such a ruling. Does this ruling further substantiate the theory of evolution in some way? If so, how?
I thought Math proved the existence of infinity?
I think we need to use a new word: untheistic - meaning not related to God.
A-theistic is not, in my view, correct when referring to scientific studies because it implies no God, rather than Gonot relevant to the issue.
Sawing wood for example, is untheistic, not athiestic.