You seem to be forgetting I was critiquing the arguments of someone who calls himself the "intellectual Christian." So the question at issue is internal to Christianity: Can that religion's ideas be rationally defended? The trick of modal logic, for example, is fake intellectualism.
The genealogical game of saying that this ancestor was responsible for that descendent doesn't get you far because there's no stopping point. Christianity derived its ideas from Judaism and Greek philosophy and mystery cults. Judaism got its monotheism from Zoroastrianism, Greek philosophy may have come from Hinduism, and so on on.
Plus, it's the genetic fallacy. There was no smooth transition from Christianity to modernity and the Scientific Revolution. Modernity was pulled kicking and screaming from Christendom. The latter fought the upshot of the new, naturalistic worldview every step of the way. Think of Bruno, Galileo, and Darwin. Everything that contradicted Church dogma had to be discredited to maintain the Church's earthly power over its subjects.
Science is a case of free thinking, which was opposed by the premodern Church. Perhaps the original expectation that natural processes would be regular and subject to "laws" was inspired by Christian theism or deism, but the driving force behind setting up experiments to discover the truth for yourself was based on skepticism and specifically distrust of Christian authorities and dogmas. So the rise of science was largely antithetical to Christian faith and compromise with the political agendas of dominating laypeople and Christianizing the planet.