Not quite.
Enlightenment scientists like for example, Isaac Newton, believed they were studying the Mind of God in nature.
Since they believed God is rational, so they believed must be His natural creations.
Therefore, they weren't trying to "prove" God, only to discover Him.
Even today many scientists still believe nature is God's creation, though sadly the numbers are said to be shrinking.
But natural-science itself makes no demands either way -- science's naturalistic assumption is only methodological, not philosophical or theological
For those atheist scientists who make it philosophical/theological that is their, in effect, religious choice, not a requirement of science itself.
Olog-hai: "The ones who came after were consumed by a lust to try to prove the opposite and draw a false picture of a steady-state universe consisting only of matter."
No, nearly all scientists today accept the "Big Bang" theory as the best explanation for the Universe's beginning in time & space.
Some scientists, desperately seeking to avoid the question of First Cause, have concocted a fantasy called "multi-verse" from which our Universe is imagined to have descended.
But "multi-verse" is not a scientific theory, or even a falsifiable hypothesis, it's just a fantasy hoping to dazzle us away from the question of First Cause.
Oh, you again. As far as the “Big Bang” goes, pseudoscientists were forced to accept the clear evidence that started to pour in when Hubble first discovered red shift. Also, my point stands since your interjection here is anachronistic.
Your premise with respect to Newton is reversed, since he was a firm believer in God. Newton’s words with respect to God were “masterful creator” and “universal ruler”. He had a strong interest in end-time prophecy also.