What verified, uniquely Christian principles support scientific approach? In several books (incl. those written by atheists) there is the statement that Christianity gave a boost to science in the West. Allegedly, there are statements in the Christian teaching that promote scientific approach.

What are these statements in Christian literature (specific to Christianity, i. e. not appearing in other religions)?

I only have anecdotal (unconfirmed) evidence.

Example 1: One of the Christian thinkers (Thomas Acquinas?) stated that


God created the nature,
the nature works in an ordered way (i. e. is not chaotic), and
God does not micromanage most of the time (i. e. when he does, it's a miracle; at all other times nature works without divine intervention).


In other words: Gods creates a self-regulating system (like an ocean) once, then it works on its own in an ordered way.

From these statements it follows that it is possible to understand how nature works by finding out the laws that govern them (empirically finding out the nature of the order from step 2).

Example 2: Allegedly, one of the Russian priests once said that Christian teaching does not contradict the theory of evolution. The statement that God created the universe in seven days can be understood as a metaphor (like many parts of the Christian literature). These are not calendar days, but may last for billions of years.

I want to find publicly accessible, verifiable parts of the Christian teaching that support the scientific approach. I am not interested in cases where Christians made scientific discoveries or advanced the science in other ways. Rather, I want to know what parts of Christian literature formed their thinking and allowed to make those discoveries.

Ideally, these statements are peculiar to Christianity (i. e. are not part of Judaism) and do not appear in other religions. I want to find out whether or not the fact that science succeeded most in Christian countries can be attributed to the Christian doctrine (hence if some statement appears in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it does not help validate the thesis).

Update 1 (2018-06-15): I will accept an answer that confirms or refutes the statement in example 1 above. That's a good starting point.
A couple things come to mind with this, and I will need time to get quotes and references.

First is the scientific method was founded and formulated by Catholic monks.  This is often attributed to several groups (some non Catholic and not monks) depending on the method and such.  I know it was in the 1600s that the scientific method was perpetuated.  It makes sense that some orders of monks had been doing the same thing for centuries before and continue to this day regarding rituals and routines and such.  There is a method to their reasoning. So it is conceivable that a group this dedicated to order and regiment that was tough such through the Bible and Christian teachings to only extend that in other things they do like studies and research.

Along those lines, the Catholic Church had most of the education institutions for a long time.  The education system as we know it is the foundation for research, sceintific  findings and process, deeper knowledge and more, which is established by the Catholic Church.  Before Christianity and in other non-christian countries you don't see the same education system by a long shot.  The overwhelming majority of private schools (college and grade schools) are Christian or were originally Christian.  They are often regarded as having better education standards and being more knowledge based and can somehow still compete with public schools at a college level from a financial standpoint.

My last thought is split into two, kinda.
First is that I know there were debates before Christianity and through Socrates, Plato and other philosophers those debates would become the foundation for some general thoughts.  This was also the case for early Christians, but with heresies and debates they needed to settle these disagreements and have one line of thought for some things.  The need to settle meant a different approach and a different finish than philosophers.
Also, the Catholic Church started the whole Devil's advocate thing.  To prove a deceased member was a saint would mean to prove beyond reasonable doubt and a Devil's advocate would help do just that.  The process wasn't democratic or a vote.  Rather it was a heated debate with someone saying the opposite or to "prove it" all the time.  If the debate didn't get past the devil's advocate phase, then the person was probably not a saint.  Those people who were devil's advocate were also very faithful and devout and often didn't necessarily believe in the counter points they made but wanted to push things forward and prove it.  We still see that today with devil's advocate and people trying to prove it beyond a doubt in order to practice science in any form.