Why are believers criticized so much for being anti-science when so many scientists are ... believers?

My first introduction to philosophical debate was through Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. The idea that they hammered into a younger me was that faith was stupid and irrational and any person with faith was themselves stupid and irrational and inherently anti-scientific. This last step is vital. It is not just the faith that is the target of their attacks, but it is the believers too. I recall e.g. Hitchens once asking a believer whether he believed in Jesus' resurrection, and after he responded yes, Hitchens retorted "I rest my case, science has nothing to do with this man's world view", and the audience started clapping. However.... the majority of scientists are believers. This study from the USA shows that 51 % of US scientists believe in some form of supernatural power. And that is just the USA. If we start including scientists from much more religious countries such as middle-east or Latin America, that number skyrockets to 70-99 %. I am unsure what the numbers are in Europe and Asia, but, either way, I do know that a majority of scientists believe that science and faith are NOT in conflict. So given this, how come non-scientists like Hitchens and Harris claim a patent on what it means to be scientific and not, when scientists themselves seem to disagree with them?