Some creationists emphasize the difference in religious/metaphysical assumptions of creationism vs. evolutionism as if this explains almost all their differences. But if that were true, creationists should focus on defending their religious/metaphysical assumptions instead of criticizing evolution. Since they do spend much time criticizing evolution, they are at least implicitly saying they have enough in common with evolutionists to have a dialogue. Evolutionists seem to want only monologue. What do creationists have in common with evolutionism and conventional science in general? In addition to a belief that some truth about the world can be found empirically, they have in common a form of naturalism, which leads to a search for natural laws and explanations. However, in the 19th century, science accepted extreme naturalism, which in practice is indistinguishable from metaphysical naturalism. It insists that science must be naturalistic “all the way down”. It says that if God exists, His direct actions are empirically undetectable.
Creationists are accused of the other extreme, supernaturalism, in which divine or semi-divine agents intervene in the world at any time for any purpose or no purpose. This was the mythological world that ancient Greeks starting with Thales objected to. But creationists hold to neither extreme. They accept a moderate naturalism in which a reasonable and loving God creates and upholds the natural order, and sometimes intervenes in the natural world. Creationist method recognizes both the actions of God and the consistency of the natural order. It is naturalistic in that the default assumption is that natural laws and explanations are expected unless there is historical or revelational justification for supernatural events. In particular, the six-day creation, the great flood, and the dispersion at Babel are sufficiently attested. Other events are possible but the burden of proof is on those suggesting them; otherwise, naturalistic laws and explanations prevail.
Christians who promote theistic/deistic evolution accept extreme naturalism and a God who is undetectable. To them the acts of God are completely indirect and can be known only through esoteric knowledge that interprets conventional science through gnostic readings of the Bible. This is properly called gnostic because it severs God from the natural, physical world, contrary to the Incarnation and revelation of God in history. Those who promote progressive creation must hope that previously unknown miracles supply what naturalistic science cannot. Their case is weak scripturally and scientifically. Creationists need a moderate naturalism for methodological purposes as well as showing the inadequacies of their opponents.