And on that point, I would agree with it, but I would not charge "establish[ing] the supernatural in the worldview" as inevitably promoting superstition.
Whether creationism is too superstitious is one issue that is down the road apiece. It would appear that the first consideration is whether we really have a handle on how things are. You take the position that rocks tell us enough that we needn't worry whether our measurements, logic or the rocks themselves are influenced by devils or whatever. There is a whole host of other issues where there is enough complication that deciding what is real is far less easy than looking at a fossil and measuring the isotopes present. Sin. History. Crime. War. Love. These are mysteries.
Creationism has a lot to say about all of these things, and most of it is "supernatural."
But that does not put the supernatural cause at odds with the natural cause. The problem with creationism is that it wants to introduce this conflict between natural and supernatural cause, such that the supernatural cause invalidates what we know of natural cause.
Indeed we do. Why not put aside the question of whether starlight is influenced by the supernatural (or the process of coming up with index fossils)? Doesn't creationism as an origin story, describing a fall, describing a corrupt world as distinct from a ordered world of people at peace with God, doesn't that tell us a lot of supernatural things about why there is war? What about the story of Babel, about man presuming to reach Gods by his methods, his man-made religion? Doesn't that tell us a lot about the nature of war, national pride and ultimately, the judgment of nations.
How about the history of the Jacob/Esau and Isaac/Ishmael? That models fits the current middle east conflict pretty darn well. Again, this a supernatural event.
There is a history of sexuality in Genesis. Homosexuality is an offense with supernatural consequences according to Genesis. Now, you can say that we know better now. But, that is an entirely made-up pseudo science quite unlike looking at rocks and measuring isotopes.
Must Canada be incinerated like Sodom because it has outlawed preaching from the Bible against homosexuality? The attempt to compare Canada to Sodom requires many comparisons that we are ill-equipped to make. ("I will not destroy it for ten righteous.") But, scripture suggests great peril. Could you simply say that Rome fell because of economic problems and bad leadership? The factors involved in the fall of a nation are so overwhelming to the human mind. There is no way to exclude judgment due to sexual immorality as one among many factors.
They are sufficient in that we do not logically need to introduce any additional factor to explain the observation.
Except that you have a really hard time extrapolating forward more than a very small bit, which reveals the trouble with the presumption that you have all the factors covered. Clearly there are other factors at work.
Whether that makes them ontologically sufficient is another matter. Does any natural cause exist without the support of supernatural cause? I don't think that can be established.
But, if it can't be, your sample is suspect and probably contaminated.
Do you know that we are not? Prove it.
Well, that's part of the logical problem, isn't it?
And, AFAIK, nothing to say about the findings of science. Grace explains in general why we have a universe, why we have a habitable planet, why we exist as creatures capable of knowing and loving God, and equally capable of denying and resisting God.
Yes, but grace is not amorphous. Grace caused a land bridge to form in the Red Sea years before God moved the water away from the relative shallows to allow Israel to cross. Grace is a matter of enormous complexity. It is theoretically a matter that could be studied scientifically, but it would take eternity, possibly much better minds and certainly far more data than we have now. This is at least the functional equivalent of the "supernatural."
But what does grace have to say about the workings of the atom, the force of gravity, the size and structure and age of the universe?
If the field is too complex to allow us to account for all of the data, what else do you have but a supernatural event?
I would say it is a woefully insufficient reason to embrace creationism. TEs do recognize that mystery is real. Perhaps it is a failing of creationists that they do not recognize this.
Well, you needn't "embrace" it. But, how do you avoid giving it the smallest benefit of some doubt under these circumstances?
Yet you specifically dispute the half of the picture we have. (And I would agree, we probably have much less than half.)
Fine. Let's assume that your limited data is correct on index fossils, etc. Does your half of the data really allow you to extrapolate on questions of why human history is as it is, why sin does what it does. Does it tell you how history will end?
I think part of the problem, and creationists have said this time again, is that once you assume you can correct God on the time frame in the Bible, you will assume that everything else is in play. Perhaps that is the heart of the problem. Is that really a fair assumption? Should it be in a world dominated by supernatural influence.
I don't think anyone is trying to eliminate mystery. Let's just stop pretending we have mystery where the mystery has already been revealed.
If we admit mystery, all of statements have an asterix, which says, well, the world appears to be old, but the witness of the Bible, which we can't rule out says that maybe we are wrong.
Where else should we place an asterix because of "creationism" (as encompassed by the whole of Genesis).
Can we rule out that Israel's current persecution is related toa supernatural problem?
Or, on the question of war., we think Hitler simply had a serotonin problem and was halucinating from lack of sleep, but maybe he was possessed and his citizens subject to deceiving spirits.
On the contrary, without being able to exclude or account for the supernatural, I do know why I am here today.
1. Naturally, I am here because I was born and have not yet died.
2. Supernaturally, I am here because God placed me here and sustains me in being.
Do these perspectives conflict with each other? I think not.
If you know so well why you are here today, then you must know enough to guarantee that you will be here tomorrow or a year from now. (And, God forbid that you should be otherwise than here, unless He takes His whole Church home.) Since you don't know, again, the complexity exceeds our ability to understand it.
Biblical belief is the shortcut that one takes due to that complexity.
I don't think the problem with creationism is being too supernatural. It is the tendency to equate "divine" with "supernatural" and only the supernatural.
Creationists seem to assume that God cannot be seen in anything natural. And therefore to ascribe any phenomenon to natural causes amounts to an assertion of atheism.
To the extent that you really can't see clearly without the "supernatural" revelation on which you measure all other observations, I would agree. Creationism assumes the ability to see, but it requires the right perspective or foundation or worldview, failing which there is deception.
And even then, the picture is quite limited. For example, will the world suffer catastrophic, worldwide drought five years from now? Science can't say for sure. But, there is some evidence for the proposition. The Bible says at some point, the rain will indeed stop.
Why take shortcuts at all? Can you really understand complexity if you refuse the scenic route? 
