Hello, Had2.

 
Uh NO! That is not true, with the Catholic faith. If you click on the links
I posted you would have known that.



Perhaps, then, you should be patient. Did you happen to miss my statement "I will check them later when I have time."? Or again did your zeal lead you to gloss over my post and impede your comprehension? 

Thank you for your large post. Please recognize that, if I did not possess adequate time to click the links which you provided; there is a very high likelihood that I will not possess the time to read an enormous copy-and-paste post. Which, I will add, is a subject being addressed entirely on your misunderstanding of a post which I made. However, since you were kind enough to provide the information, I will respond. I would ask that in the future you are considerate of the time of others with your posts.

I have not made the assertion that the Catholic Church was at odds with learning, so I do not see the relevance of your post. Perhaps it can be found here:

 I think it can be said that the true intimate origin of the university is
is the longing for knowledge, which is inherent in man. He wants to know about
everything that is around him. He wants truth.
 
Perhaps not. The Catholic Church has had several well known bumps with "science," none of which need elucidation here. I did not make the assertion that individuals of faith do not contribute to the body of knowledge constituted by science, but that Christianity is more at odds than any other major religion. Stripping away the excess, the basis for Christianity is that knowledge gained by revelation from/through an omnimax deity is epistemologically valid. The Scientific Method can be applied by any human regardless of religious belief, that is not the objection. Due to the nature of Christianity, the belief in the truth of certain propositions will remain at odds with science, beginning with the core belief that such a being exists, behaves in certain manners, etc. Defective reasoning is present in the ad hoc assertions of "theistic evolution" and other terms which attempt to link two unrelated epistemological methodologies. Put more simply, hypothesis of religious notions, along with other related items such as psychic phenomena; have a high and consistent rate of failure in experimentation. I'll quote Maarten Boudry:

In certain belief systems, invisible causes are postulated to account for a
wide range of phenomena, in such a way that their workings can only be inferred
ex post facto from the observed effects. If the causal relations
and conditions in the belief system are not sufficiently specified, and
allow for all sorts of secondary elaborations, believers can get entangled in
subtle feedback loops between theory and observation, which keep the belief
system forever outside the reach of empirical refutation. Consider the
belief in magic rituals, healing crystals, shamanic powers, etc. In such
cases the effects are used to respectively determine the activity
of whatever invisible cause is determined by the belief system: such-and-such
must have happened to account for the observed effects. Any
apparent failure, then, can be explained away by arguing that, apparently, the
intervention was not of the right type, or not performed properly, or interfered
with another invisible cause, etc. This pattern of spurious postdiction is also
apparent in the way parapsychologists explain away null results and cherry pick
data to "determine" where and when psi forces were active. Likewise, cult groups
often draw a range of unfalsifiable concepts and events to avert
disconfirmation.

M. Boudry
How Convenient! The Epistemic
Rationale of Self-validating Belief Systems
    

That is the level at which the conflict exists, not whether or not individuals of faith participate in "Science."
  

"Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe."

Zappa