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?
The judge is merely pointing out the obvious that science cannot detect the supernatural, thus is "atheistic". By definition, science deals with the natural world, therefore anything it can detect and measure is a part of the natural world, I.E. "atheistic".
That situation could change when the first scientist detects, or describes a method to determine the nature of God. That scientist will become the most famous in history too, so don't tell me that all scientists are anti-God and wouldn't attempt such work.