[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Whether logically consistent or inconsistent, most evolutionists seem to deny the theory as entailing abiogenesis. I'm not sure, why because if one is going to attribute everything to so-called "natural" causes, it hardly seems unnatural for matter to simply assemble itself somehow"

Because the origins of life are outside of the scope of the theory. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. The ToE simply isn't concerned with where life, or matter, came from, anymore than any other scientific theory is about these things.

"Finally, as far as public school policy goes, the federal government has no business endorsing or establishing solely atheistic principles."

Since evolution, as taught and practiced by scientists, is not atheistic, then there is no problem.

"It is in principle atheistic to state that science can only be done to the exclusion of theistic underpinnings."

No, it's agnostic, not atheistic. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference.

"Notice I did not say "theistic hypotheses" or "theistic experimentation" or "scientific attempts to prove the existence of God."

You didn't have to, they are all assumed with *theistic underpinnings*. Science should not assume a God or assume there is no God with weighted evidence one way or the other. If there is no weighted evidence one way or the other, the question is futile and incapable of being answered by science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Because the origins of life are outside of the scope of the theory.

A good many high school biology textbooks refer to it.

No, it's agnostic, not atheistic.

We've been down this road before. To state that God is, or always be, beyond the purview of science is to make an atheistic statement about science. NO God = atheistic by definition. Public school textbooks on biology hardly present the subject from an "agnostic" perspective. They don't say, "it is possible that a higher intelligence is behind all this organized matter and life but we just don't know for sure."