If you're passionate about focusing on the science side of things, please just ignore this post.
I was just thinking, though, that since you seem to be doing some of your education in person... well, people are people and ask all sorts of questions. I would be surprised if you haven't received any questions/ideas along the lines of morality and spirituality basically being defunct without The Church.
Just wanted to point out that this (of course) is also absolutely false and there's also lots of information on that side of things around here too. If interested, feel free to check out the following threads:
I'm pretty sure she has imagined all her young life that science operates just like the religion she knows...
One of my favourite examples of science for teaching science is an "absurd conclusion" example. Going through the process of science to come to an obvious-to-us false conclusion... but the conclusion 100% relies on the evidence-at-hand in the example. This shows how science comes to conclusions... based on evidence.
My personal favourite is one I made up: The Absurd Bird example
I live on an island with a tribe of people. The island has no birds on it, ever. As far as the evidence that I have goes, no birds exist. People come to visit our island sometimes, and they tell us of birds from their island (and, yes, birds actually do exist on their island, I just don't know that yet). They tell me of birds and I don't believe them.
Theory: All bird concepts are figments of the human imagination
Over the course of known history (on my island, for as much as I know), no other source for birds has ever become known. Therefore:
Strong Theory: All birds are figments of the human imagination
Sure, it's incorrect, but that's not the point. It is a good, strong scientific theory because it follows all the evidence I have completely.
But what about the evidence of the people telling me about birds? Well, their say-so isn't evidence. it's just their say-so. It's not scientific.
Now, if someone brings an actual bird to my island. Or, perhaps even the bones of a bird or something like that. Then, this theory would be destroyed on the spot and my scientific ideas of birds would need to be revised.
But, what if people kept coming to the island and only saying and believing that birds exist?
What if I asked for them to bring a bird? ...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?
What if I asked for them to bring the bones of a bird? ...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?
What if I asked for lots and lots of undoctored photographs of birds? ...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?
What if I asked to go to their island to see birds for myself? ...and they refuse to grant me access to their island?
Yes, the theory (in the reality of this example) is 100% wrong. But... as far as the evidence that I have goes... the theory is strongly supported until it can be overturned by additional evidence. If (or when) it is overturned and updated... my theory has gotten closer to reality. This is how science progresses. We are humans that don't know everything. Science updates itself to reflect reality as we learn more and more. Science has a built-in function that ensures that we validate everything we claim to "know" instead of simply resting on anyone's "say-so."