Dr. Mohler comments here on a similar topic that I did before here: Ethical consquences of Evolution
He reviews an article by Yuval Levin, called the The Moral challenge of modern science
I recommend reads of all three, although my own pales in comparison to the articulate reasoning of the other two gentleman. I have long challenged the assumption that science is “neutral”. It cannot be neutral when it assumes methodological naturalism, which is an a-priori exclusion of almost any deductive reasoning, and more importantly, anything that is irreducable or not explainable by the scientific method.
Methodological naturalism is in itself a philosophical commitment without the kind of proof that its supporters require from other positions. Unless it can withstand its own internal requirements of proof by scientific method, it can have no preferred status, and should be accounted for in terms of its underlying assumptions, primarily that of the non-existence of the supernatural.