When you refer to the "ultimate AIM of science", you assign "science" a sentient characteristic...I read atheists referring to science and/or evolution, quite frequently, as if these concepts possessed a mind capable of having a goal.
I'm sure you know better. It should be obvious that in this thread 'the aim of science' = 'the aim of doing science". Failure to acknowledge that (and the rest of your post) suggests that you're splitting semantic hairs in an attempt to denigrate atheists.
This forum has become bogged down in such NQS, but I guess it's a sign of the times.
Denigrate atheists? You read a lot into a simple statement. A lot that just isn't there. As an avowed agnostic, I have no wish to denigrate atheists... or anyone else, for that matter. And in fact I was not. But, just because I identify with atheists and agnostics doesn't mean that I should hold them to a lesser standard in logic than I would a theist.
What is "obvious" is subjective. Intuitive. If you mean "doing science", say "doing science". Intuition and subjectivity have no place in science. They have a place in our emotions and they do just fine there. But to use them in science is to dilute the meaning of the word. It becomes pseudo-science instead.
