classic case of false dichotomy for justifying personal bigotry ...
Tons of individuals who are openly religious while simultaneously having credible professions in the scientific field.
No doubt you will ignore this fact in order to focus on a minority who aren't credible for the sake of sustaining your irrational hatred.
:shrug:
If anyone chooses to ignore this fact, it is probably because science and religion are not, and have never been, incompatible. The majority of actual scientists probably don't really give a damn whether another scientist is religious or not, unless that other scientist chooses to bring it up... or make it obvious.
Atheism is usually reactionary. The unfortunate thing about atheism is that a lack of belief is often forced to assume a defensive position in the face of the believer - or even the agnostic. It is difficult to maintain equanimity in the face of belief, and that statement applies not only to religious disputes.
Theists don't really understand what a lack of belief actually means. Atheists don't understand belief. Both pretend to.
The only thing which renders science and religion incompatible is doctrine. This has become more pronounced in the modern world, by dint of the fact that believers have begun to assume a more personal belief. Gone are the days where god was whatever the church deemed him to be. In place of that, the believer is often forced to adjust his own philosophy to adhere to personal opinion.
The result, in modern times, is a thousand believers all with a different interpretation of what god should be, what god is, and the moral codes god might follow.
Doctrine is on the way out. "God", as a single pure entity, no longer exists. Belief has come full circle; where once there were many gods, eventually there was only one. Now, there are many once more.
The difference lies in the curious pattern of those many believers in addressing him by the same name; in perceiving god with a single point of reference.
Most theists fail to realise that in recognising there are so many "personal" gods, is proof in itself to the atheist that there are none at all. Either that, or the theist must consider that god has lost control of man - a point as theologically dangerous to theists as god not existing at all.
The Catholic church, by way of example, has fought hard in the last century or two to remain relevant in the modern world. The reason this is so is that their own doctrine - as defined by the bible itself - has come under attack from more relaxed social attitudes. The Catholic believer is forced to confront and examine church doctrine in light of his own moral codes (as dictated by society in place of the church) and often ends up having a personal god. This is a compromise. God, as an entity defined by the church, does not compromise; yet social evolution demands it.
The Church responds by relaxing its own historical attitudes in order to retain significance and power - and in doing so, denies its own doctrine and, by way of extension, its very reason for existence.
Pope Francis probably doesn't even realise he is only buying time for a dying institution. The Church has become a franchise whose only real product is its appeal to belief, a business which relies solely upon the economic concept of goodwill.
By contrast, Science is constant. In itself, it does not recognise the difference between a scientist who is a theist, and one who is atheist or agnostic.
Science does not care. Only scientists do.
Science retains both relevance and significance in a world perpetually subject to change, where theism often fails to remain relevant. Where science seeks answers, theism claims to provide them. Where science does not have an answer, it attempts to explain why, and to find one.
Theism simply changes its doctrine; or the theist adopts his own. Either way, god is denied final authority.