Well, for much of the medieval and renaissance eras the Church was a major contributor and patron of scientific pursuits, and a large proportion of those leading the scientific advancements were Christian. So there is that.
AIUI (and this is kind of a nebulous topic) the Enlightenment was kind of a movement that espoused shifting focus from Faith as the arbiter of morality and as the model of behavior and more towards people themselves. It basically rejected the Christian idea of Sin and Evil. It believed that people were basically good and that focus on progress in both the scientific material sense and the moral sociological sense would bring about a better society and humanity. To varying definitions of "better" of course.
Though this is a rejection of Christian tenants, not all Christians or Philosophers found them to be mutually exclusive. Descartes, for example, didn't reject the existence of God. He did not even seem to consider it a question, AIUI. He more believed that the soul that interacts with God and the body that interacts with the world were distinct but connected parts. Not sure if that helps but there it is.
You have to realize that the Enlightenment came about in a culture that was steeped, to various degrees, in Christian ethos. It was a rejection of parts of those ethos while, by default, retaining other parts. Its like when most nations decided to outlaw the death penalty, they were rejecting the idea that death is an acceptable form of punishment. But, by default, they were retaining the idea that crimes require punishment, or at least response. That notion came from the old paradigm, even if that part of it (death penalty) was rejected. The same is broadly (though simplistically) true of the Enlightenment and Christianity.
Its a bit rambling but I hope that helps answer your question.