I'm not attempting to marry the two - religion and science. How you get to that is amazing. It is nowhere proferred as the case. Yet, it is the case that largely Christian minds are responsible for the mere existance of Science today and saw it thrive to get here. Christians had and have no problem with science. As I noted, calling into question methods or conclusions does not put science at a whole at risk. It may put method or conclusion at risk - that's about it. If a method or conclusion is so shoddy as to warrant scuttling, whatever rests upon it is no more worthy. A faulty foundation is doom for a home, a logical construct or an ideology. More simply stated, false premises do not a truth make.
It sounds very much like you are trying to say that a 'Christian' foundation is necessary to give science stability. What I am saying is that the stability of science is based on the methodology and that the religious belief of those that developed the methodology is strictly incidental.
If you are not trying to link science to religion, why do you bother to bring up the putative religion of those that contributed to the development of science? This is no different than claiming science was started by people who consistently put their left shoe on before their right shoe, or by men who dressed to the left.