"Science cannot disprove any such thing, because, as a hypothesis, it is not falsifiable. Furthermore it is the nature of science that ALL hypotheses are conditional until disproved in favor of a better one. Hell, the Newtonian formulation of gravity held sway for centuries and is only gradually being shifted by post-Einstinian exploration. This is a totally different approach to knowing from embracing a body of data based on its authoritative provenance -- the individual rather than the experiment."

I don't disagree, Amos. And I'm saying that that is not where the battle line is drawn.

I'm saying that many people, evidenced in great number on this very forum do not accept the first line in your above paragraph. They accept that from their study of science, as they understand it, they are like Shakey and accept that science has taught them that, indeed, science has amply disproved the existence of a god.

Again, I don't know any agnostic/atheists who did not arrive at their god-free conclusion via their understanding of science -- whether it is, indeed, science or not.

You see the dogmatism and lack of scientific reason in the creationist. You don't see the same lack of scientific reason of those who think they are speaking "scientifically".

I do see them and I do not accept their premise. And I don't accept their right to teach a god-free conclusion in classrooms for which I have paid equally. If they were right and I were wrong -- or, said a more accurate way -- if they had a greater case for a god-free universe than I do for a god-directed one, I would accept their right to teach their world view as such. I do not accept that.