you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.
No, to paraphrase your original post:
There is reason to allow this abhorrent practice.
There has to be oversight if it's done though.
There likely cannot be effective oversight so we shouldn't do it.
The first line is the problem. The rest means nothing in that context. If you meant otherwise you failed to clearly articulate it.
who are you/anyone come to the idea that atheists flock to science.
Why, I am ME. I have both the ability and the right to come to any idea or notion that I damn well choose. The question is who are you to imply otherwise? You must be from a place that tries to restrict what a person thinks. Welcome to freedom of thought and expression, it's a warm and inviting place that people flock to.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you are getting hung up on semantics. Perhaps I should have said science tends to draw people that have a greater tendency question everything. The complete lack of credible evidence for religion eventually persuades them to release that belief in a deity. Drawn to, flocked, whatever.
Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.