Oy. Brace for long rebuttal, everyone. Just start scrolling...
"It seems that atheism has become the official stance of America’s school system."
No, the American school system's stance is secularism, which is preferred as a neutral ground which allows students of all religious backgrounds to learn without being indoctrinated into one religion or another. The only thing endorsed by public schools that is in any way remotely associated with atheism is evolution, which is accepted by a great many religions in the world today as well. The Catholic Church, for example, has apologized to Darwin--why isn't the teaching of evolution considered Catholic indoctrination?
"One way in which many schools and teachers are attempting to indoctrinate students is by the use of new terms to hide the actual intent of the policy maker. For example, the current euphemism for an atheist is a nontheist or naturalist."
If your kids can't understand the prefixes a- and non-, no amount of indoctrination is going to help them. As for "naturalist," it is a distinct term, albeit related to and usually considered a subset of atheism. Consider "Protestant" and "Lutheran." If I'm being too subtle, consider "the current euphemism for a Protestant is a Lutheran."
"Even if a naturalistic explanation is not true, scientists must still try to explain all events from this worldview."
Yes. That's the point of science. Science is the study of the observable universe. God is by definition unobservable, so we shouldn't be trying. Get over yourself.
"Knowing that their functional atheism could hinder them from obtaining grants or public support..."
Once again, secularism does not equal atheism.
"...scientists often skip around these conclusions in their writing and teaching."
I'm sure your definition of openness would be entertaining. "Today, class, we will be studying bacterial evolution. God is dead."
"Some, though, are open and honestly reveal their atheism. One example is William B. Provine, professor of biological science at Cornell. He notes that at the beginning of his class about 75% of his students “were either creationists or believed in purposive evolution” guided by God or a divine power. Research on his incisive, direct, hard-hitting teaching on origins (how students often describe his lectures) reveals that the number of creationists and those who “believed in purposive evolution” dropped to about 50% by the end of the course. No one has hauled him into court for his openly indoctrinating students in atheism, and indeed, scientists in general have applauded him."
He teaches aggressively and students learn. You should sue. In all seriousness, I see no claim that Provine is even an atheist himself. He could be a theistic evolutionist, a believer in NOMA, a deist, etc. All we know is that he teaches biology and students become less likely to entertain creationism under his teaching. If you ask me, that says more about biology than about the professor.
"Scientists generally not only support Provine’s one-sided teaching but are determined not to allow the other side in the classroom."
The "other side" you speak of is a fringe element supported mainly by religious fundamentalists. Biologists give no class time to Lamarckism, either, because it is equally discredited.
Of course, in saying this, you do not even assert that creationism has any merit at all. You don't even use the word "creationism" in this section. Your goal is merely to paint evolutionists as dogmatic (the surest case of psychological projection that I have ever heard). Of course, this is not the case, as evolution is constantly debated among the biological community. The thing is, public schools are not the place for current scientific debates. If creationists were serious about science, they would be putting their work into legitimate, peer-reviewed journals, and letting the ideas be vetted until they shone--and only then seeing them enter the classroom.
But, as we all know, they are not serious about science.
"Further, scientific orthodoxy teaches that human existence has no God-given purpose, but is a chance event, a blip on the radar screen in the infinity of time. No God had any part in the creation."
Science has as much to say about the existence and behavior of God as mathematics has to say about the existence and taste of tuna sandwiches.