@dga471, I think realism vs. non-realism is not the right way to frame this. The question is, rather, the degree to which science and Scripture describe the physical world we all inhabit. Does Scripture legitimately describe the physical world or not? Does science legitimately describe the physical world or not?
The tendency among TE (exhibit @Jay313) is to take science as a nearly total description of the physical world, without careful attention to its limits. The tendency is to doubt and question any warrant for believing things about the physical world based on the testimony of Scripture. This, it seems, is hard to reconcile coherently with traditional or evangelical Christianity.
In contrast, we could take science and Scripture as legitimate but partial descriptions of the physical world. We do not expect them to be articulating them same things to us, nor do we limit Scripture to the realm of values (e.g. NOMA). Instead, we think that they each have legitimacy, even if we don’t know quite how to give an account of how they describe the same world.
This why, I think, the GAE is so valuable to evangelicals. It gives the account of how Scripture could be true and so could science. Neither is a total view of reality, but each is valid from its own perspective, and each is legitimately talking about the physical world we all inhabit. For Christians outside the evangelical tradition, I suspect it will be hard for them to understand why this is important.