For science to be meaningful it has to be built upon the right foundation.

You need motivation to do science, and moral direction for applying technology to the real world. You also need to make several basic assumptions about nature and yourself before you can even start to use the scientific method. Science can’t provide any of these underpinnings for itself, for it is built on top of them. They have to come from outside of science, from philosophy and religion. There’s good reason to believe it was no accident that modern science was born in a culture saturated with the Christian Worldview as it seems to provide a better philosophical foundation for science than any other religious worldview, especially Atheism. One could even go so far as to say science without God is meaningless!

     Science comes from the Latin scientia, meaning “to know.” Why believe that we can perceive and understand the order in nature, that we can “know” anything about nature at all? Why do we believe we can transcend nature enough to observe and manipulate it in experiments? For the atheist, man is nothing more than a mere mechanical part of the great cosmic machine. Every thought and every action is just as determined by the laws of physics and the great chain of cause and effect as the products of the digestive system. But you must ask, if the human brain is nothing but three pounds of chemicals that arranged themselves by chance over billions of years, if absolutely everything in the universe can be ultimately explained in terms of inanimate matter in mindless motion, then how can we trust the very thoughts we are thinking and any conclusions we come to? Why believe that what we observe and what we believe have anything to do with the Truth about reality? Not only this, but the concept of true freedom of the will, the abilty to think freely has no foundation in Atheism, and therefore must be accepted on blind faith.

As the famous biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, put it:

“For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.”
(See for yourself!)

     On the other hand, in the Christian worldview, humanity was created in the image of God with the built-in ability to reason, and as a result, we can expect to discover Truth about nature when we do science. Similar arguments could be made for several other basic assumptions necessary for doing meaningful science, such as:

1. Our senses are reliable to accurately observe nature.

2. We have free will to choose which sensations and thoughts to pay attention to and which to ignore in an experiment.

3. Nature is real; it's not just an illusion.

4. Nature is orderly, so orderly that we can describe it using simple, elegant, mathematical formulas.

5. The order we observe here and now can be applied to other times and places.

6. We can't simply predict how nature is ordered, we must go out and see for ourselves.

     Should we choose Atheism which requires blind faith in each of the individual assumptions above as true even though they are each unique, unrelated, and totally independent of one another? Or should we choose the Christian worldview which makes one Assumption that can explain all of the others in a way that makes them each fit perfectly and beautifully into one and the same Story?

In this sense, the time-honored maxim of science, “Ockham’s Razor,” supports the Christian worldview better than Atheistic Humanism. As Ockham's Razor says, All things being equal empirically, the simpler explanation is the better explanation.