My initial reason was that it seems to be a waste of time. I do not get the sense that many 'scientific' people are using science to find the truth, but rather to debunk religion. That is called 'bias'. It is like I told a friend of mine... 'Evolution dosen't sell because it is true, but because it is what the market wants.
Your experience with 'scientific people' is so completly different from mine that I think you are using a different definition of science and religion than I am familiar with or we must live in a completly different reality.
Many of my professors in the geosciences attended church on a regular basis. My parents and sister attended the Presbyterian Church and knew many of the professors from there including the ones that taught me minerology, geology field camp, and isotope hydrology(!); and taught my sister physical chemistry and metallurgy. Are these 'scientists' debunking themselves every Sunday?
Now, of course in any university that emphasizes science and engineering there are many foreign professors and grad students. It would probably be news to most of them them that they are actively debunking Islam, Judaism, Sihkism, and Hinduism because they are practicing scientists.
Likewise the Lutheran Church my sister attends in Los Alamos, where LANL is, where the bomb was invented, is full of scientists every Sunday.
Of the hundreds of scientists I have met and conversed with, many, if not most, believe in God, and many, if not most, are devout enough to be active members of a given faith. However, none that I know of are supporters of creationism/ID.
You seem to imply that one must support your beliefs concerning creationism/ID to be considered religious. Is that true?
Also, I must ask, how many practicing scientists have you known in your life? Your experiences with them appear completely alien to mine.
™ Version 4.2