You really would make a good YEC. Secular science, secular evolution, secular meteorology, secular cosmology, secular plumbing, secular cosmetology…
Why are they and you unable to make the distinction between science and faith, methodological naturalism vs. philosophical naturalism? Actually, we know why they can’t – they think they are being faithful to the ‘plain reading’ of Genesis, their eisegesis that ignores the ancient meanings entailed in preference for their superficial understanding, not to mention that they have to ignore the facts of physical reality. You, on the other hand, don’t have that excuse.
Exactly. Just like we remove his influence from the science of meteorology. (Do you?) It is too bad you do not know how to include God’s providence in your thinking, speaking of inclusion. It is very real and understandable to faith (think of Maggie’s wonderful sequence) as is his M.O. to anyone willing to admit the facts, but it is undetectable to science (way more than vague, to say the least ; - )!