That is the thing, a day will not come when these questions will be answered by Christianity. Christians answer them in vague, non-answers, exactly how we've seen in this thread.
Be HONEST...
...Pad, I posted a list of "believers" that have made very significant contributions to science. As a matter of fact, without those present in that list, modern science wouldn't be where it is. Your response was 'irrelevant'.
...a list of people who helped make science what it is today is not vague, nor is it irrelevant. So, forget for a second that you know believers who's reality is still skewed, and look at the list again.
In his 1996 encyclical Fides et Ratio Pope John Paul II wrote that
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."[4] Pope Benedict XVI re-emphasized the importance of reason in his famous 2006 address at Regensburg.[5] But the emphasis on reason is not a recent development in the Church's history. In the first few centuries of the Church, the Church Fathers appropriated the best of Greek Philosophy in defense of the Faith. This appropriation culminated in the 13th century writings of Thomas Aquinas, whose synthesis of faith and reason has influenced Catholic thought for eight centuries. Because of this synthesis, it should be no surprise that many historians of science trace the foundations of modern science to the 13th century. These writers include Edward Grant,[6] James Hannam,[7] and Pierre Duhem,[8] to name a few.
Yet, the Galileo affair has come to typify the Church's relationship with science, although it was an exception rather than a rule. Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman has referred to the Galileo affair as the "one stock argument"[9] against the Church. The standard treatment of Galileo as a martyr for science has been overturned by modern historians, however. In fact, his theories were celebrated by popes and churchmen alike, with members of the Jesuits personally verifying many of his observations.[10] Galileo encountered trouble when he presented heliocentrism as fact rather than theory, when he lacked the necessary proofs to overturn long-standing science.