Precious few Freepers exclude theological knowledge whether by direct or indirect revelation. Interestingly, the false dichotomy you claim only recognizes indirect theological knowledge.
In science the coin of the realm is empirical evidence.
Theologcial knowlege may be useful in telling you where to look for that evidence, and what kind of evidence you're looking for. It's still up to you to find and present that evidence.
Bringing complaints of "heresy" into it appears to simply be an attempt to dictate what theological knowlege is allowed, and by extension what empirical evidence may or may not be admitted.
That is not an agreeable proposition.
You are accusing me of saying things I have not said and holding positions I do not hold.
In the first place, to accuse someone of a heresy, he and I must first have, at some time, shared the same dogma. I have no clue what dogma you embrace and therefore no ground to accuse you of heresy.
In the second place, if I had been asked about God and the scientific method, I would have said:
Jeepers...
Everything that man uses as a measure - space, time, autonomy, energy, inertia, qualia, information et al - are parts of the creation itself and not properties of, much less restrictions on, the Creator of them!
That is in fact my big complaint against the abusers of science, the ones who do philosophy/theology under the color of science. They aver that anything which they cannot physically observe and measure therefore cannot exist, i.e. is a superstition of a dim or weak mind. These are not true atheists, the ones who choose not to believe but don't mind if you do. They are in fact anti-God and particularly anti-Christ activists and abusers of science - spineless miscreants at that since they carefully avoid making the same sweeping condemnations of Islamicists.
All physical science needs a metaphysics into which its findings are fit. In some metaphysical models its use is limited. E.g. radical YEC theories which posit such a global geological upset that little would be left to reliably tell of its detail. Other models make room for more observations, such as OEC. The money verse of the bible isn’t in Genesis at all, but John 3:16. So much energy often seems to be spent in speculating how man got INTO trouble that it is a distraction from homing in on how man gets OUT of trouble.