You claim to understand the difference, and yet don't seem to understand the difference. If science says it is incapable of seeing God, it is not saying God doesn't exist.
In most cases there is nothing wrong with practicing atheistic science, just as in most cases there is nothing wrong with undertaking science with the understanding that all organized matter is a manifestation of God's handiwork.
One can gain theological insight by doing science (i.e., being motivated to do science to understand the work of God, or some such), but that insight isn't, itself, scientific. It is theological. And if, on the chalkboard, the words, "then God did a miracle" appears, that isn't science either.
It is mere opinion, and not a scientific matter, to assert that God is beyond the purview of science. You cannot make such a statement and be scientific at the same time, especially since science has not, and probably cannot, settle the matter to begin with.
Nope. Science can determine what is, and what is not, within the abilities of science to examine. Theological insights, however, are not open to scientific investigation.
For example, if science existed in First Century Jerusalem, science could determine the chemical content of the jug at the wedding at Cana which is purported to have turned from water to wine. It could determine the chemical composition of the contents before the supposed miracle, and afterward. It could even eliminate all known natural causes if, in fact, the material afterward is found to be wine. It cannot, however, draw a scientific conclusion that a miracle occurred, because that is not a scientific concept. It can only say that no known natural cause is at work. From that one can make the theological conclusion that a miracle occurred, but that would not be a scientific conclusion because it is untestable.
You are entitled to that opinion. The federal government, OTOH, is not entitle to establish and support that opinion alone by law. Public schools are obligated by law to allow the position that organized matter is a manifestation of a higher intelligence to be presented in a scientific context.
Nope. By law, school science classes must serve a secular purpose. You may wish to define this as "atheism," but your peculiar vocabulary does not change what the law is.
You're repeating yourself. You are not saying anything I do not already know and understand. I've also repeated myself in stating that the atheistic aspect extends only so far as the opinion of some that God is beyond the purview of science. That is not the same thing as saying God does not exist, only that the consideration of God does not exist within science. That makes science, per se, in such a person's view, "atheistic." It is a limited application of the word.
Science may not know whether or not God is within its purview (either directly or indirectly). It is not qualified to make such a judgement. You've only adoped the opinion, like many others, that science has that prerogative. Your distinction between science and theology, like your distinction between natural and supernatural, is arbitrary. It is hardly a scientific distinction, but very much a philosophical one. It is not a distinction that may enjoy enforcement by law. But, as long as we know where you are coming from - as long as we know you undertake science as if God is beyond its purview - at least we will know why you make the conclusions you do when faced with evidence.
By law, school science classes must serve a secular purpose.
That is a point of view that shows ignorance as to the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.