It’s been a couple of hundred years now, and scientists have forgotten that uniformitarianism is a postulate, not a fact. Their belief that the same physical laws apply now as applied in the past is a matter of faith, not of science.
The question scientists ask of the past is not “what happened”, but “what is what would be most likely to have happened, if the current scientific laws held then, as now.”
This postulate rules out the possibility of creation as a supernatural phenomenon.
But, and it’s a big but, scientific research has clearly demonstrated that there are structures all around us that would have taken far more time than the young earth creationist hypothesis would allow for, unless the earth was created already containing features that had the appearance of having age.
In other words, if God created the world 6000 years ago, he created it in such a way that it looked far older. Which means that if God did, in fact, create the universe 6000 years ago, he created it so that it was indistinguishable from one that had evolved over millenia.
And scientists, operating under their fundamental guiding postulate, are studying the history that God created into the universe, rather than the history of the Universe. That is, what would have been the history of the universe, had it actually evolved, instead of having been created by God with an embedded history.
Which leaves us with a philosophical question. Is there any difference? Is what scientists do any more or any less valid, whether the history they study is real, or was simply created by God?
No.
Is faith in a divinely created world challenged in any way by scientific fact?
No.
I found your post quite refreshing.