And you accepted the premise of secular scientist:
Can you imagine the world we might be living in if secular scientists didn't always get it wrong? We might have ways to... prevent them from getting polio. Oh wait...
Jonas Salk wasn't a secularists, he beleived there was a God. Again, nice try!
--it'd be more accurate to say that if any scientist who accepts global warming (or whatever it is you think "secular scientists" think about homosexuality or abortion) believes in God, your argument is nullified.
You can't be secular and believe in God. Again, nice try!
At the time I wrote that, I didn't realize you thought "secular" meant "atheist." It doesn't. Wikipedia has a whole entry on "secular clergy," who obviously aren't atheist. This article about Angkor Wat says
Even after its glory days had passed, Angkor remained popular with Buddhist pilgrims who journeyed from across Southeast Asia and beyond. Today the site also draws secular travelers—almost a million a year.I don't think they mean they're all atheists.
You can't be secular and believe in God.
By now, it should be obvious that that's not true. You're simply using the word the wrong way.
The distinction that's important here isn't between scientists who believe in God and those who don't--both can follow good scientific practice. The distinction is between those who follow good scientific practice and those who pursue their own agenda instead, whether for political, personal, or nominally religious reasons.