And scientists know that the laws of nature have never changed, how?
Creationists can still use science working with the laws of nature as they stand now. That's what scientists do What does it matter what the cause is? Science can't address the cause anyway, because it has no way of determining what the cause was.
One methodology is based on *assumption*, with no rational basis or evidence for it, and the other is based the cause being God. So how is working with a system with unknown causes and no basis for the assumptions made for it superior than working with a system whose cause is believed to be God?
Of course it's just an assumption. One formalized (but not invented) by Isaac Newton.
Between you and Newton as authorities on how to do science, I don't think it's a contest.