Most people wouldn't consider those two characters to be fathers. When I mean fathers, I mean bishops, priests, or monks writing between approximately A.D. 50 and 600.
Why do people think the fathers, who knew virtually nothing about science (or the biblical languages) compared to us, have some kind of special insight to science?
They don't have special insight into science, but they do have special insight into theology and Biblical exegesis because they lived closer to apostolic times. And yes, some Fathers did have special insight into the Biblical languages. Many of the early Fathers, like Origin, lived in societies wherein the Biblical languages were still in everyday usage. Others had access to ancient texts in these languages that have since been lost.
Many people just go through history picking people who support their view. That doesn't prove their view, it only shows someone else had the same view.
Well, that's not how patristic research is typically done. What you should do is study the Fathers as a group and make note of issues upon which there is broad agreement. When you see that, it is significant.
"do have special insight into theology and Biblical exegesis because they lived closer to apostolic times."
That's ridicoulous. They knew virtually nothing about ancient Hebrew and had a fraction of the manuscripts we have now.
Appealing to the "fathers" is a logical fallacy. Pointing to people who agree with you doesn't prove you right. Maybe it will make you feel good, but it doesn't prove a theory.