Science is inherently atheistic

[Angrboda]

This is an example of the genetic fallacy.  (The naturalistic fallacy is also involved, though not determinatively.)

On the contrary, science continues to be an atheistic endeavour. 

• You'll probably notice that modern science still excludes religious endeavour such as astrology.  Besides, as I explained before, modern science originated from principles related to religiosity, so this would be an obvious counter example to your claim.
  

You may want to revisit the definition of genetic fallacy, and perhaps observe the structure of modern science.

I might say the same for you. You were entertaining the argument that because science emerged from a period and movement rooted in secularism that this is what it should remain. It matters not that one can, tenuously link it to an even earlier movement that was non-secular. The key for the genetic fallacy is the distinction between a time in the past and that of the present. It does not mean linking it solely to its earliest origins. You're just being disingenuous, and ignoring the relevance of the fallacy to your arguments.

You also ignored the point about the naturalistic fallacy, to wit, that what science is or has been does not inform us as to what it should be. If you are arguing that it should be atheistic because it has been atheistic, then that would be a flawed argument.

I have to ask a point of clarification here. By an atheistic endeavor, are you implying that it should not investigate theistic claims? Because that would be stupid.

Regardless, science is neither atheistic or theistic because science doesn't, by its nature, possess beliefs. It may propose hypotheses, and it may embody a consensus of opinions, but that's not exactly the same thing. In as much as scientific consensus may be said to express a belief about the world, there is no principled objection to it embracing the opinion that a god or gods exist. Its officially neutral. It's neither pro-theist, or pro-atheist.