4 main thoughts in response:
1) Clearly you missed that the first scientist I listed was Copernicus who was outside of "the age of enlightenment" by a couple hundred years
2) A major part of my point was that the scientific method itself as we know it was historically founded on aspects of the Christian worldview. Again I recommend, as I did above, googling Christianity and the Origin of Modern Science by Dr. John Millam. I think you'll find the full paper online.
3) The term "age of enlightenment" itself has come to be looked upon unfavorably by a number of academics in the same way that the term "the dark ages" has gone into disuse. Both were labels that have been found to be far too generalizing to the point of inaccuracy.
4) Your statement that "They were great thinkers in spite of their religion, not because of it" reveals that you inferring what you want to see onto the evidence. Just as the many Christian scientists nowadays would consider such a statement about them to be inaccurate and offensive so, likely, would all of the pillars of science mentioned above find it offensive. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that their beliefs were IN ANY WAY a hindrance to their scientific pursuits despite your unfounded assertion. Might I also point out that Einstein also, widely considered one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century, stated this:
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
— Prince Hubertus zu Löwenstein, Towards the Further Shore (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156; quoted in Jammer, p. 97
Granted, Einstein was not a Christian, however he was also quite adamant that he was not an atheist and that it was specifically because of the orderliness that he observed in the cosmos (which fits in with what I mentioned above about the Christian worldview leading to the scientific method because of the underlying assumption that a God of order - as the Bible says He is - created a universe/creation of orderliness which can be observed and then thus understood and predicted)
1. Yeah, I missed him. Incidentally, it is Aristarchus of Samos who first discovered the idea of heliocentricity, not Copernicus.
2. Dr. Millam's paper, aside from being a propaganda piece, does little to advance the idea that the Bible directly supports free inquiry. After all, it took how many years for the church to free up their reins enough to allow for science to flourish? If these ideas were so apparent, why is a 21st century apologist expounding on them occurring in the 17th century? Why weren't these ideas discovered when the Christian religion had full power during the Early Middle Ages? Or even during the early days of the Church after the fall of the Roman Empire?
3. Unfortunately, during the Dark Ages, or Early Middle Ages if you prefer, very little to any scientific inquiry was advance or supported. Education was almost solely for the clergy or the wealthy. And those who were not Christian or did not adhere to the established dogma were considered heretic and imprisoned or put to death.
4. The early scientists you mentioned made scientific discoveries completely separate from their religious pursuits. Galileo was imprisoned by the Roman Inquisition and ordered to recant his heretic notions of a heliocentric solar system under threat of torture. Newton studied religious ideas that would have labeled him as a heretic as well had the Anglican Christian authorities known of his studies, none of which bore any productive results. His scientific studies were considered an afterthought by the man himself. The latter scientists who lived during the 17th and 18th century were allowed to flourish due to the Church losing its power and influence over free inquiry. If Christianity had such influence over the advancement of science, then why didn't it advance during those times when its power was at its fullest. Something Dr. Millam doesn't explain because he is Christian, and these facts are troubling to his overall agenda.
There were many discoveries made earlier than that time, but they were not allowed to advance because of the dogma forced on the populace by the Church.
Think about this. The Romans and Greeks left behind the pinnacle of scientific thought and technology of the time, after the fall of the Roman Empire. Greek mathematics, logic, science and medicine, and Roman aqueducts, roads and their own improvements in science, all left in the dust and ruin when the Christians came into power. The article mentioned the discoveries of other cultures, but those early Christian "scientists" didn't discover them or improve upon their findings due to Christianity's supposedly unyielding nature of free thought and inquiry that certainly advanced the idea of modern scientific thought. Did it?
If science owes so much to Christianity, then we should be far more advanced than our current level of technology since Christianity had so much influence for so long, and they had the shoulders of giants to stand upon.
It's going to take more than apologetic diatribe to rationalize that. This is nothing more than modern apologists revising history to the credit of their religion. It's easy to look upon history and put your own spin on it to advance an idea you desire. But the facts and lack of any real fruits from Christianity's highest moments of influence take the wind out of the sails of this one.
cwink
. It’s a plain fact that one can co-exist with the other; but co-existence is not the same thing as being conceptually compatible. 
