BroJoeK: But many other scientists are not atheists, including some of the best known, from Albert Einstein to Max Plank to even (perhaps) Stephen Hawking.
Spirited: These men are atheists only with respect to their unbelief in a living, personal Creator who by Divine Providence upholds the souls of men and all things within the space-time dimension yet nevertheless exists outside of the cosmos/nature (space-time dimension).
Of course none of these men were atheists with respect to their religiously held belief in the ‘nature’ philosophies and/or nature religions (i.e., Epicurean Materialism, Neo-Platonic or Eastern Pantheism) they embraced.
All nature religions/philosophical systems are monist by nature. Monism expresses the very ancient idea that all that exists is either spiritualized matter or physical matter and the evolutionary, emergent, or emmanationist energies working in and through the One Substance over vast ages of time.
No nature religion or philosophical system is able to account for the origin of life and conscious life in particular. This is why Francis Crick among others (including Richard Dawkins), has moved away from abiogenesis (life emerged out of spontaneously generated matter) and toward pan spermia conceptions, the idea that perhaps life hitched a ride on an asteroid to our planet or maybe extraterrestrials brought life here. But as Crick has honestly admitted, pan spermia merely moves the problem of life out into deep space.
By "these men", you are referring to whom?
Again, I'll post this listing of well-known Christian scientific thinkers throughout history.
The list is hundreds long, and includes over a dozen evolutionists.
It does not include our more deistic Founders, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, but it does include names like Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur.
The list confirms that neither all scientists nor all evolutionists are effectively atheists.
Nor does that list include hundreds of historical Jewish scientists, who were/are also not atheists.
As for those scientist who were/are atheists, I can't defend them, except to point out that any broad generalizations are likely to be inaccurate.
spirited irish: "Of course none of these men were atheists with respect to their religiously held belief in the ‘nature’ philosophies and/or nature religions (i.e., Epicurean Materialism, Neo-Platonic or Eastern Pantheism) they embraced."
Since your term "these men" refers to nobody specific, I'll have to take it as a broad generalization, likely to be inaccurate.
spirited irish: "All nature religions/philosophical systems are monist by nature."
Perhaps if you could name some of these alleged monistically oriented scientists, we could test your hypothesis to see if it holds up?
spirited irish: "But as Crick has honestly admitted, pan spermia merely moves the problem of life out into deep space."
The fact is that as of today, there is no serious evidence to confirm any "origin of life" hypothesis.
It's all just educated guess-work.
What is known for certain is that some simple organic chemicals (not life!) are found in comets, and doubtless also arrived on earth.
It's also known for certain that under certain conditions, very simple organic chemistry can become more and more complex.
But nobody (so far as I know) has yet found or demonstrated how naturally created complex chemistry began to take on characteristics we today might call "lifelike".
Until that happens, all the various hypotheses are just that: educated guesswork.