I understand and share your concerns. But consider the point -- I believe it was Rousas Rushdooney's -- that a scientist may deny G-d with his lips but affirms Him every day in the laboratory.
The argument is, science is meaningless unless the universe is ordered by its Creator. If we live in a chaos instead of a universe, our search for replicable results and physical laws is simply nonsense.
I'm convinced that if the secularism is triumphant, we will lose our faith in the validity of science. In fact, I think the process is well along.
I was studying biochemistry this summer and got up to how the simple cell feeds itself. Perhaps I covered about 70-80 pages of text. In almost every other paragraph the authors wrote about the 'miracles of nature', how wondrously nature remembers the good protein structures and discards the duds, miraculosuly this combination of amino acids were selected. How nature cleverly uses the same plan over again. And many other equally contradictory comments were sprinkled through the text. The authors were screaming there is plan and purpose, a blue print, a designer, an intelligence that chose the correct path. But because of the absolute ban on giving any credence to the teleological proof of a creator they were forced to resort to the inanities I mentioned. I was tempted to write a short pamphlet using these paragraphs right from the text and replacing G-d in a side by side comparison. But I realized that those who have the benefit of seeing the wonders more clearly than anyone else, those masters of the subject, are the ones who would ridicule the effort the most. The ones who are blessed to witness G-d's infinite wisdom are capable of herculean contortions of self-blinding belief in sciencism. Perhaps I still should do it.