Why should conservative Bible-believing Christians be more circumspect in their opposition of evolution?

Part 1-Why do most scientists who are conservative Christians still support at least a limited version of evolution?
The premise of this title probably takes some Christians by surprise, and some may doubt that the scientists of whom I speak are really conservative Christians. This title comes from my experience as a scientist who worked for many years at a major university. Many of the faculty of the Department of Biological Sciences there were also members of the local First Baptist Church. All of them believed in the inerrancy of scripture AND the utility of a limited version of evolution as a scientific theory. Groups such as “Answers in Genesis” have been very effective in labeling anyone who accepts a limited (scientific) version of evolution as a reasonable scientific theory as an evil compromiser. It is my contention that this is absolutely incorrect.
Scientists working as scientists can only consider natural explanations for natural phenomena. To consider supernatural explanations, including God, would be to leave the realm of science and to enter the realm of theology or philosophy. Therefore, when scientists do not include supernatural explanations as a formal possibility in their investigations of nature, this does not necessarily reflect anti-religious bias, a hidden agenda, or anything but the careful time-tested practice of science. I am a conservative traditional Christian, but when I work as a scientist I do not consider supernatural events as possible explanations for my experimental results.
My world view tells me that God could have intervened to counteract the normal laws of nature and cause my experimental results. However, my training and experience tell me that as a scientist, it is not useful to consider this option. Christian writers and thinkers (for example, Charles Colson in “How Should We Now Live?”) may condemn scientists for excluding supernatural explanations in their work, but every believer, no matter how conservative, does the same thing. Even though we believe that God could suspend the laws of nature to save us if we stepped in front of a speeding car, we never make the assumption that He will. We always assume that the normal laws of nature will apply, and we behave accordingly. How can we then legitimately condemn scientists for doing this in the course of their work? Many scientists believe that God exists that the He can control nature. However, the tools of science can tell us nothing about how He does this or when or why He may choose to do it. These questions can only be approached in the realm of theology. Therefore, when scientists are working as scientists, they do not and should not seek supernatural explanations for natural occurrences.
Therefore, scientists who study origins and adaptations of living organisms are limited to the use of scientific assumptions and methods. What would be the consequences of doing otherwise? What if a scientist made the following hypothesis and put if forward to allow other scientists to confirm or refute it by the usual methods of science? “No one has yet been able to devise a credible natural mechanism to explain the formation of the first life form from non-living components. Therefore, this must have occurred by a supernatural mechanism.” This may be true, but it is not a scientific conclusion or hypothesis. If God used a supernatural mechanism, then we cannot ever, even in principle, by studying nature, hope to understand it. Thus, it is not testable and does not fit the commonly accepted definition of a scientific hypothesis. It may be true, and many scientists would acknowledge this. However, they also recognize that the methods of science are absolutely powerless in the discernment of such things that they can only effectively apply the methods of science to understanding NATURAL mechanisms.
I believe that God did intervene supernaturally to create the first life forms from non-living molecules. The origin of the molecules necessary for life is not my area of research expertise or interest. However, if it was, I would study it scientifically under the assumption that the mechanisms involved were all natural mechanisms. This is the only way I could maintain scientific and intellectual integrity and use the powerful and effective methods of science. However, at the same time I could hold the belief that God intervened in a supernatural way to accomplish the formation of molecules or combinations of them necessary for life. This belief would not interfere with my scientific practice at all. I would exhaust all possibilities to determine if a natural mechanism existed that could explain the phenomenon in question. If not, as a scientist, I would either abandon this question or investigate different natural mechanisms. As a Christian, I would assume that the lack of a scientific explanation could suggest a supernatural mechanism. However, I would never base my faith on this conclusion, and I would never recommend that anyone else do so. Science is always provisional. If new evidence is found indicating a natural explanation for the origin of life from non-living components, as a scientist I must at least provisionally accept this conclusion. Therefore, as a Christian, I do not want my faith to depend on any “fact” of nature, because all these facts are subject to re-evaluation and change as new evidence or new theoretical frameworks develop. Thus, the interdependence of faith and science that forms the basis of “creation science” is fundamentally unsound scientifically (because it begins with pre-suppositions that cannot be disproved scientifically) and theologically (because it places faith in the subordinate position of depending on natural evidence).