Someone who truly understands science trusts completely the process while remaining critical of the answers. What you are describing is a simple debunker. Someone who has presupposed the answer before inquiry. A debunker will hear a claim of a religious miracle, like a statue crying blood, and simply say "I know there is no god, so therefore it can't be evidence of god, it's something else". This is not a scientific approach to the truth. Science wants to know what's behind this phenomena and it not satisfied with simply discounting the evidence based on prior knowledge. Something is causing the statue to cry blood, lets investigate to see what that something is. If we then find evidence of this something being of divine nature, we must accept that conclusion. A true scientist speaks with confidence only about the narrow subject of his expertise. This is why it is most important to know the process of science more so than the answers that process brings. Even if the intricacies of a theory are beyond our education, we can still examine the process and make sure it's sound, and indeed it is the most fool-proof process ever invented.
