I beginning to feel that this is becoming nothing more than the oft-repeated debate. The plain fact is that we do have theists that are active skeptics. Very good ones, at that (Pamela Gay comes to mind). Most of them keep their theistic beliefs in their personal realm (where any religious belief belongs, IMO) and don't let them overlap into things that are more objective.
Perhaps I'm not as skeptical of skeptical theists because I have observed them in nature and many of them are better skeptics than us - they spread the word of science and skepticism while we're sitting debating what it means to be a skeptic and who we should accept into our club.
I used the example of the Islamic scholars that worked to find out how nature worked to which was a vague reply about Christians doing the same thing with the implication that they fucked up. So what? I didn't say all religion values science and discovery, or even most - I simply pointed out that there are deeply religious folks that feel it is their responsibility to discover every thing they can objectively about the natural world. Those people exist, and their personal beliefs don't inform their observations - instead observation informs personal belief - EVEN IF their conclusion that the gorgeous clockwork of nature is evidence for a god of any sort is stretching the conclusion to far by scientific standards... And folks like Gay don't inject that stretch into their scientific work, instead they hold on to it as something personal (which is where it should stay)>