You have a very poor understanding of what science is. Of course it does care, because those two things are different, and the purpose of science is to collect all information there is, discern everything, catalogue all differences of all things.
If all there is a lifeless ball in space, what would science "care"? There would be no one to do science and "science" as a concept can't care.
But the fact you did so isn’t - unless you suffer from a mental illness, you were bound to choose something. That’s simply how your brain evolved.
And now we're slowly getting to the crux of the matter: just as our brain evolved to produce morality of some kind, it also evolved to make up stories (grand and small) to try to explain the world.
Some of those "stories" eventually formed into what we now call the scientific method (i.e. try to make sure your stories are verifyable and falsifiable and produce "facts".
Some of those stories were used as a social tool to develop some shared morality, to agree on which acts were good and which ones aren't.
And some of the latter category turned into religion.
Because “sanity” is a measure of how one’s brain behaves as compared to the collective of humankind - how “average” your brain is. Because morality is baked into humanity, it’s sane to make a choice regarding, say, murder being wrong or not. Believing in flying unicorn robots that sing heavy metal, on the other hand, isn’t.
Can you seriously look at human history and say with a straight face that religion (and made up stories) aren't just as "baked into" the human brain as morality is?
It's one thing to argue that a neutral, as-objective-as-possible brain should disregard religion (and I pretty much agree with that), but it's an entirely different thing to argue that "humans believing in religion is abnormal" in a historic scale ... that's just being blind to the facts.
And their belief in a benevolent sky daddy also can’t be falsified or proven.
Fallacy: Non Sequitur. Give me a description of a god, any god, and I’ll disprove them. No god can be described and exist, and a god which can’t be described might as well not exist.
Last Thursdayism or the five-minute hypothesis is one great example. They don't usually mention a god in the common phrasing, but it's easy to rephrase it to include one: "There is a god that created the universe exactly 5 minutes ago with all the signs and properties that make it look like it's a lot longer. That god created you and all your memories as well as all the uncountable cosmic radiation rays that have yet to hit earth and everything else as well. After that creation that god stopped interacting with the universe.". Go ahead and disprove it.
I'm an agnostic atheist myself, but I really don't understand the obsession of some people with "disproving god".
If there was any kind of real scientific proof of the non-existence of god, don't you think that several Nobel prices would have been given out for that by now?
Most current religions have developed to a state where the existence of their god is basically un-falsifiable, because if you can ever prove any specific thing about them wrong, then they can always just use the "gods ways are inscrutable" escape hatch.
That makes any god effectively un-falsifiable. And any theory that can't be falsified is irrelevant to the scientific method.