I hardly think it to be an "interpretation" of science to undertake it with the simple assumption God is outside of its purview or consideration. "Atheistic" is an adjective, and it applies to all science that is undertaken with the assumption God is forever and always outside of its purview. It is not a term or way of doing science that must necessarily be eschewed, but don't kid yourself into believing it is "neutral." Bullshot. Science is never neutral.
So, then... And please answer this seriously as I mean it seriously. Is the science of embryology and human development "atheistic"?
I've never seen a science text of any description anywhere that teaches embryology as anything but a purely naturalistic process. Yet the Bible asserts repeatedly (sometimes directly quoting God) that God is personally and intimately involved in the creation of individual humans beings; and not just "souls" but the physical body as well. See the standardly cited anti-abortion proof texts: God "forms inward parts" in the womb, he "knits" fetuses together of bone and sinew, etc.
If embryology is not atheistic, then how is it not atheistic while evolution is? Or if embryology is atheistic, then why has no one ever (to my knowledge) complained about it's teaching.
I'm genuinely curious about this.