#####It seems that either you're refusing, or you're claiming that scientists covertly refuse, to make a distinction between operational naturalism (which is basically an acknowledgment of the properly limited aims and capabilities of science) and philosophical naturalism (the assertion that the "creaturely" universe is all there is).#####
I fully understand the distiction between operational and philosophical naturalism. That's why I noted above that Newton was not in violation of the rules of science when he suggested that God created the universe and its laws, and proceeded to study the universe and those laws.
####Some scientists do conflate operational and philosophical naturalism, having in mind individuals like E.O. Wilson or Dawkins, but most don't and I don't think it's a fair characterization of scientists generally. Certainly creationists are FAR MORE likely to conflate the two than are evolutionists.####
Most scientists probably don't confuse the two, but the ones that are very active in the evo-crevo wars usually do. I doubt that most scientists would object to my earlier suggestion that five minutes be spent at the beginning of the semester explaining that science can neither confirm nor refute God's existence, and that the universe may or may not be dependent on God. But the activist evolutionist scientists would be in court in no time. To them, an acknowledgement that science cannot refute God's existence is the same thing as telling the kiddies that God exists, and they can't tolerate that. Science, to them, must assume God doesn't exist.
As for creationists confusing the two (operational and philosophical) more than scientists, it depends on which scientists we're talking about. Creationists don't confuse the two any more than most politically active evolutionists.
Doesn't theistic evolution confuse operational and philosophical naturalism? Yet, the evolutionists here promote it constantly as a way that Christians can both believe in God and accept evolution. Of course,, as they give with one hand, they take away with another, as they also won't allow theistic evolution to be taught in the schools.
That's not my experience. In fact Dawkins is the only crevo-activist and scientist that comes to mind who is a "scientific atheist". (That is one who argues from science to atheism. Others may happen to be atheists, but without arguing that science, i.e. operational naturalism, is sufficient evidence for atheism.) Can you think of anyone else?
As for creationists confusing the two (operational and philosophical) more than scientists, it depends on which scientists we're talking about. Creationists don't confuse the two any more than most politically active evolutionists.
Again, this is not my experience. The argument that evolution implies atheism, which can only be based, at least in it's usual ipso facto form, on a confusion of operational and philosophical naturalism, is ubiquitous among creationists, both lay creationists and many of those with scientific credentials.
Doesn't theistic evolution confuse operational and philosophical naturalism?
No. I don't see how. In any case I don't think that "theistic evolution" describes a single or specific view. There are many possible and differing ways of reconciling evolution (or any naturalistic theory, or science generally) with theism.
I think you would find that most people, who may not have thought through the problem systematically or philosophically, view the position of "theistic evolution" as recognizing that there's more to creation than science can know or tell; i.e. that the scientific account, even to the extent it may be true and complete in its own terms, is not the full story or the complete truth. Isn't this attitude an acknowledgment, rather than a denial, of the limitations imposed by operational, as opposed to philosophical, naturalism?