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.
Ah, "original intent."
Be careful when you argue that the Constitution means more than it says - otherwise, you have to admit "intent" such as Jefferson's Wall.
LOL... If you think that the distinction between science and theology is arbitrary, then there really is nothing left to discuss. Yours is a lost cause.
That is a point of view that shows ignorance as to the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.
Understanding what the current law is is in no way indicative of ignorance regarded the purported original intent of the drafters. It merely recognizes that what the law is is not always the same as what we thing the law should be.