system
A chat on subreddit /r/NoStupidQuestions
human
To be fair, the primary reason for that is that religious institutions and its members had the time and, importantly, base of learning for this kind of work; the dominant role was one brought into existence by weighted sampling.

The Scientific Revolution right before the Age of Enlightenment, on the other hand, was marked by a split with religious influence on science, and was steered by ancient Greek culture. The Golden Age of Islam experienced Hellenization as well, and while al-Khwarizmi was employed by the caliph’s House of Wisdom, al-Haytham was able to make a living outside of religion and eschewed it, to name two important historic figures.

Now, Draper’s conflict theory in terms of the history of science isn’t exactly universally acclaimed, and most research on this topic paints a mixed picture, meaning that religion had both positive and negative influences, which is accurate.

Given the history of science, I just take issue with an unqualified praise of religious institutions as bastions of scientific advancement. While true, the implication is often that religion played a driving factor instead of the circumstances clustering the process.
gpt
Oh yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just lointing out that religious people who are anti-science are baffling.

Nothing in your religion says you have to reject scientific discoveries. Discovering more about the universe makes God more impressive, not less. The god who created a single world in 7 days is nothing compared to a god who created Trillions of worlds over the span of aeons. Discoveries on the grand or microscopic levels are places to find wonder.

And yeah, just pointing out that there is religious precedent for being a part of the future, rather than holding it back (*though as you say, there is also precedent for holding it back*).