But all of those men believed in the scientific method and acted as scientists. People who try to cram faith into science (such as Creationists) do not.
The creationists I know do. So, faith and science are separate? Did not God create both? Is not Jesus Lord over faith and science and every other human domain on earth? Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. Faith is just a blind non-rational leap into the dark right? While science is reasonable and physical right?
Tell me, which "science" or "scientist" do you subscribe to and how do you decide which scientist is right? There are many Christian scientists who believe as I believe and many atheistic scientists who believe in philosphical materialism (a system that has been disproven and shown to be wholly inadequate and illogical). How do you decide what is science and what is not? What is your criteria?
The Christianity I believe in combines both faith and science and reason. Any faith without reason is a blind non-rational leap into the dark, and it borders on existentialism (another inadequate philosophy). If it wasn't for "faith" that comes from the Christian worldview, the biggest theories of science would never have been discovered. Their discovery was only possible because men like Newton and Kelvin had "faith" in a rational God, and extrapolated thru their "faith" in that God, that His creation was ordered and therefore could be discovered thru reasoned research and experimentation. Without that worldview, it could not happen. In fact, that is precisely why none of these big discoveries were made in China, or India. Eastern philosophy does not hold to a rational creator-god, but to chaos and uncertainty.
You people have a lot to learn.
The scientific method was created by a Christian - Francis Bacon. So, just how does naturalistic (anti-christian) science rate any credibility?