"It's just one stark example of science v atheism"
You could have a hundred such examples and it still would not prove your generalizations. Surely a "non atheist", such as yourself, understands such basic concepts of mathematical science.
"But it is symptomatic of an unavoidable temptation inherent to atheist beleifs, to want to 'close the case' at the most simple, superficial, 'God refuting' explanation at hand for any given phenomena. There is no such resistance for the skeptic of atheism, to embrace a reality, as wondrously complex, mysterious, yet finely engineered as it has revealed itself to be.
So if we can accuse the person of faith, of having a 'bias' to look ever further for deeper explanations lying below the superficial observation, then that 'bias' is far more conducive to scientific breakthrough, as I think history has proven"
Trying to prove such broad generalizations in the manner that you have, is not generating a lot of confidence that you are some type of authority on the scientific community.