No I’m not confusing them. You haven’t shown any evidence for the “scientific failure of naturalism”, and all you have done is expressed your incredulity that evolution could have taken place.
No I don’t think that. I believe you reject evolution as a result of your theological convictions.
But on what grounds do you say we have no evidence? You keep making claims without substantiating them. Again, where is all the evidence for the alleged obvious scientific failures of naturalism? Has it failed to explain where rain comes from, or how snowflakes are formed? Has it failed to explain the origin of volcanoes and how magnets work? Where are all the failures?
It’s just like ID. Claims are made without any evidence. In the case of ID, saying “Evolution could not have taken place because these artifacts we’ve found are far too complex to have evolved” is not an argument proceeding from the position “This is the evidence presented in favour of evolution, this is my assessment of it, and this is why I believe it falls short”, it’s just a blanket statement without substantiation.