So you accept that “methodological naturalism” doesn’t after all have the advantages over “methodological regularism” that you implied?
I have actually explained before why creator-creation doesn’t work. But let’s recap - presumably you are using your “creator-creation” distinction to form a definition for “nature.” Thus we arrive at “nature = creation,” naturalism as “the position that creation is independent of divine influence” and MN as “the methodology that assumes that creation is independent of divine influence.”
Methodologically, then, nothing changes. But you’ve smuggled in the assumption that nature, in fact, is independent of divine influence - which is deism or, at least, semideism. The metaphysics is still loaded in a particular direction.
Let’s flesh out the problems with the creator-creation distinction, with passing reference to science. Scripture says that angels are a major part of creation, as are powers and principalities, heaven, visions, the resurrected human body of Christ, a miraculously healed cancer and non-material things like mathematics, ethics, universals and so on. So does that make all these appropriate for science to study? Or are you going to redefine nature as “the particular bit of creation scientists choose to study”, and if so, your simple creation-creator divide fails.
Then again, suppose that nature is actually what God does, what we call “laws” being “general providence,” divine habits, and contingencies being “special providence,” divine choices. In that case, as soon as you study anything that actually happens in the world, you’d be studying the actions of the Creator but calling them the actions of the Creation - with exactly the same deistic metaphysical assumptions.
The same is true to a lesser, but unmeasurable, extent if God sometimes acts directly in nature - which many Scriptures directly affirm, by the way. If the providential provision of some notable answer to prayer is worthy of special thanksgiving, then you can’t say it’s due to “creation” as opposed to “creator” (or vice versa), any more than can call a book “natural” because you can’t find the author in it.