I continue to think it a directly relevant question, and a good one. But I usually get no response. Your waffling answer, although unhelpful, is by far the best.
The (I think obvious) fact is that there is wild and universal inconsistency on the part of those who claim evolution is atheistic.
The reasons given (when reasons are given) for claiming that evolution is atheistic are never particular to evolutionary theory, and in nearly all cases are general to scientific theories as such.
Although I've studied the popular Darwinian controversies in some detail, I've never really figured out to my entire satisfaction what it's really about, so I keep asking the questions.
I reckon you would accuse those who believe in theistic evolution as being "John Kerry" types. I have been clear in stating that science, when it excludes God entirely from its purview, is atheistic. I have been clear in stating this is a legitimate way to do science, whether it's embryology or geology. I have been clear in stating this type of science should be allowed a hearing in public schools. Lastly, I have been clear in stating that our Constitution does not guarantee the establishment of atheistic principles, whether it be in science classes or English classes, which essentially means that one may also undertake science with the assumption of an intelligent designer.
The controversy is really about the assumptions under which one receives and interprets the evidence. They range from atheistic to theistic and any combination of the two. They are all protected by our Constitution. They are none to be favored by the federal government.