Richard Dawkins in writings that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” is making a philosophical statement. His science is not judged by the atheistic presuppositions that he approaches Science with, but YEC’s and ID theorists, who have theistic presuppositions, have their science (however bad it might be) criticized as religion.
You are making a poor comparison there. If Dawkins allowed his atheistic assumptions to color his science, that would be criticized. As long as his science is based on the empirical evidence, not his religious views, there should be no problem.
Keep in mind that quite a few evolutionists are Christians. They, too, separate their scientific work from their beliefs, and their science depends only on the empirical evidence.
Creationists are criticized, not because of their beliefs, but because of the lack of science in what they present. There isn't a double standard here.
Why are those who deny that naturalism is synonymous with science not shown the same courtesy?
Creationists tie themselves in knots, in their arguments over naturalism. But there is less there than they assume. Scientists are going by the empirical evidence. People who deny naturalism, yet produce good science based on empirical evidence, will be respected as scientists.
There isn't any creed of naturalism that scientists are required to honor. What is required is only that their work be supported by empirical evidence, and that others are able to repeat the empirical work to confirm the conclusions.
™ Version 4.2