"Science" as we define it today is rather odd compared to even two or three centuries ago in that it has come to largely divorce itself from religion and philosophy as it has become a relatively fixed methodology. It wasn't until the late 19th century that Science became an established method and distinct from philosophy, nor was Atheism popular until Darwinian theories of natural selection discredited genisis. Until then Science and Religion were viewed as complementing each other as "natural philosophy" (I think) with a handful of exceptions such as the
French Materialists. This was when people started to develop the "conflict thesis" that there was an intrinsic conflict between science and religion. Historians of Science have largely rejected this view as highly selective, often focusing on Darwin and Galileo, whilst ignoring a much bigger picture. (keep in mind that Darwin denied he was an atheist and was a non-conformist Christian and then an agnostic and Galileo was a Catholic).
If you were to define this in terms of contributions by "religious people" to the sciences, the list would be vast. One example that comes to mind is
Georges Lemaitre who was a Catholic Priest and Physics professor who also developed the expansion theory of the universe in 1927 (wrongly attributed to Edwin Hubble). Lemaitre's contribution to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe has been argued to demonstrate it as a scientific validation for Catholicism.
However, establishing a direct relationship between a person's religious beliefs and their scientific discoveries would be "hard" at best, particuarly as we tend to re-write history to suit our preconceptions of the opposition between science and religion as
@Riverwolf pointed out.