So you are implying that when someone writes something, readers don't recognize that that is what they believe?? That makes no sense to me. (However, I'm perfectly fine with those who decide they wish to do that. To each his own.)
The fact that somebody wrote something probably explains why they wrote it. People don't usually write something that they don't believe. (In other exceptional cases, they virtually always will write "This isn't my personal belief but I have heard said that...." or "Some people believe that....." Without those disclaimers, I ALWAYS assume that what a person writes is what they believe.
I seriously doubt that any readers here are unaware of that fact.
How about we simply assume that---unless a writer states otherwise---what they write is what they actually do, in fact, believe to be the case? That would save a lot of wasted words stating what is already obvious to everyone.
When a Young Earth Creationist writes, "The earth was created in six 24hour days.", I don't need them to tell me that that is their belief and that lots of people disagree with them.
I don't think there is any confusion on that point either.
Many people hold that belief. And any philosophy professor can explain to you why it is a wrong belief. Science is a subset of philosophy that is limited to the tools and procedures of the scientific method. Those limitations are exactly what makes science so powerful.
I would suggest that you start by researching the word scientism in most any philosophy textbook. There are also many excellent atheist websites which expand upon the scientism fallacy. (I get the impression that you will appreciate their explanations of the scientism fallacy better than if those explanations come from me. And I'm fine with that.)
(I should also mention that I reached my limit on "scientism debates" years ago. And even though I taught a few undergrad philosophy courses in my day, I am not a professional philosopher. I'm not even very good at philosophy. So I don't try to explain the scientism fallacy beyond a basic summary because I prefer to defer to the experts of the academy. There are so many textbooks and philosophy bloggers who can do it much better than I ever will. And as for me, it is like defending 2+2=4. It is a fact that no longer interests me---but there are many philosophers who love such a topic. So I defer to them.)
A somewhat more interesting topic is why so many scientists think that every department on a university campus represents superlative scholarship except the Philosophy Department---as if it somehow doesn't deserve a place within the academy. Most of those critics have no idea that it was philosophers that defined and created modern science and set the stage for what scientists like them do.
I should also add that I think that your presence here has been a great addition! The more the diversity of viewpoints, the better. You've contributed a valuable voice and I always read your posts with great interest.