First, we should differentiate science in the sense Aristotle uses it and "modern science".
Why? Popular (religious) science has always been an issue (and was even moreso of a problem until the 1600), while reliable science continues to exist today. That's an absurd, close-minded thought.
Second, you have described the process "upside down": principles aren't formed; they "are" already there. Reason is logos, nous is the intellect (indian manas). I think 'mind' once had a similar denotation.
But the point is that these principles are elucidated to us through scientific investigation. Without it, we are blind. Think about 2 dimensional objects trying to perceive the third world. Well, they wouldn't, and couldn't, unless there was reason to believe there was one. Extend this not only to our theoretical fourth dimension, but to the rest of scientific thought. It's based on scientific method. There are, of course, other forms of practical empiricism, like the experience, but the kind of speculation found in Creationist thought is nothing but worthless dribble.
You might also want to consider not quoting Aristotle, a man who held misconceptions about actual reality and formulated a lot of theories at best of dubious quality.