I prefer the old name for science: Natural philosophy.

Philosophy is the love of debate and natural means whatever is experienced via the physical senses.

Religion deals with the supernatural - which is a different topic.

Consequently to speak of the debate between science and religion is like a piano player trying to give a recital of a cheesecake recipe.

Probably the single biggest thing missing in education through out the world.
I have always been fond of inductionism, and models that emphasize the ability to transfer knowledge in a way that is in tune with experiment and analysis.
As a person who does a little research, I have found it is really the only thing one needs to know.. From that you can learn anything else. It is essentially a model used to construct knowledge from a carefully designed experience. A model, a method, and experiment. The knowledge analyzed and interpreted lets you scope your hypothesis better in the future and figure out what you were missing this whole time.

In short, it is a methodical way to make as sure as possible that we are not fooling ourselves (as humans are all too prone to do) when we investigate questions about the universe. It seeks to remove all biases and predispositions and insert cold objectivity.

A godless, manmade method.

A method which tests the available evidence redundantly in order to supply the most accurate model of truth