[DaveyB]

"...There used to be people called creationists who didn't like science...."

Correction -----
There used to be a bunch of people who had a proper view of science and did not make naturalistic presuppositions. They included some of the great scientists of past like Kepler, Newton, the man credited with the scientific method - Francis Bacon. In fact for many hundreds of years when science was laying the foundation for our modern technology almost all scientists were thiestic and firmly believed in creation.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There used to be a bunch of people who had a proper view of science and did not make naturalistic presuppositions. They included some of the great scientists of past like Kepler, Newton, the man credited with the scientific method - Francis Bacon."

They all had naturalistic presumptions. Who among them included non naturalistic premises in their science?

"In fact for many hundreds of years when science was laying the foundation for our modern technology almost all scientists were thiestic and firmly believed in creation."

You are changing the subject. I am not arguing against religious scientists. I am arguing against religious claims masquerading as science.

[Stultis]

In fact for many hundreds of years when science was laying the foundation for our modern technology almost all scientists were thiestic and firmly believed in creation.

So what? Many still do. Including many evolutionists. They still do science they same way their atheistic and agnostic colleagues do.

Who can know for sure that it might not sometimes make a difference. It's been argued for instance, and even agreed (to an extent) by the principles, that the debate between Stephen J Gould and Simon Conway Morris about the degree of chance or inevitability in broad evolutionary trends was not unrelated to the former's atheism and the latter's devout Christianity, but there was still no substantive difference in their methodology or in the kinds of evidence and arguments they allowed as pertinent in scientific debate.

[b_sharp]

"There used to be a bunch of people who had a proper view of science and did not make naturalistic presuppositions. They included some of the great scientists of past like Kepler, Newton, the man credited with the scientific method - Francis Bacon. In fact for many hundreds of years when science was laying the foundation for our modern technology almost all scientists were thiestic and firmly believed in creation."

And just how much influence did their religious beliefs have on their science? It matters not what their religious beliefs were but how they developed their respective accomplishments. Newton in particular separated his religion from his work on gravity. His scientific method is as follows:
(1) we are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
(2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes,
(3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and
(4) propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.

See anything about God or the supernatural in there?