"Logos" is the epistemological root of the word "logic." Without the absolute Logos, logic and reason itself would be impossible. Which evidently is a point you wish to demonstrate for us.
BTW FWIW, I did not get anything pounded into my head by clergy in my childhood. I had no religious instruction to speak of when I was a child; I was never confirmed into any religion as child. (My Father is a Deist and wouldn't permit it.) My theological perspective is based on God's four revelations: Holy Scripture, the Incarnation, the Book of Creation (the natural world), and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I discovered the four seamlessly dovetail on all levels and mutually agree.
Recognizing this, at that point in my life (a couple decades ago), I accepted Jesus Christ — the Son of God, the Word, Logos of the Beginning, the Alpha–Omega, and final Judge of all things and especially of souls — as my savior and redeemer.
You keep insisting that the materialist/naturalist/physicalist point of view yields "clearly correct science." Okay. I'll agree with your statement provided you concur that science limits itself to such things as are material and physical. Which is what its method is supposed to do.
But there are many things "in heaven and earth" that do not and cannot fall within the range of direct scientific observation. Do you think things do not exist unless they are amenable to scientific analysis? In other words, that the (strictly self-limited) scientific method is the touchstone or criterion of what it means for something to be "real?"