Replies

"As long as science textbooks make no reference to God and consider God to be outside its purview, they will be by definition atheistic, not agnostic."

Only by the new Fester definition of atheism. The real one says no such thing.

"Science textbooks do not acknowledge both possibilities and state an undecided position."

No, they take NO POSITION, because there IS NO WAY to take a scientific position on God. Science class is not about exploring questions unanswerable by science.

I ask you again:
Is relativistic physics atheistic? It never mentions God. Is germ theory atheistic? It doesn't mention God. Like ALL scientific theories, evolution doesn't mention God. That does not make it or all of science atheistic.

Is relativistic physics atheistic? It never mentions God. Is germ theory atheistic?

I'm not talking about relativistic physics or germ theory. I'm talking about science in general, and a particular statement many of its adherents agree to, namely that, "God is beyond the purview of science." This is an inherently atheistic point of view. It is not agnostic, as you say. Is it more scientific to be atheistic? Maybe. But it is not the federal government's prerogative to establish and espouse only such a point of view.