Do Scientists, especially who I refer to as "evangelical atheistic naturalists" such as Dawkins, Dennett et.al. apply a different "standard of proof" for naturalist scientific theories than for Design theories?
No. Science employs
methodological naturalism, so any explanation it comes up with is going to be
natural. That same "standard of proof" is applied across the board.
For example when secular naturalist scientists refer to natural selection in evolution it is accepted as fact that there is such an entity. However can anyone prove the existence of natural selection?
Its more like assuming only natural explanations, and then determining what can be said to fit. But its not really making a comment on what doesn't fit. Natural Selection does explain the observations, and it hasn't been falsified, so it will continue to be the tentatively accepted explantion.
Does it have a physical existence that can be proven, or is it the name that scientists hope is the modus operandi of evolution?
I wouldn't say it has a "physical existence" and I wouldn't say "hope". I'd say that scientists have observed it working as the explanation.
It is argued that a supernatural being can never be proven, therefore intelligent design can never be proven. I can say the same for "natural selection", it can never be proven, only accepted on a belief, ie faith, therefore it is not a valid theory.
No, its because the observations fit and it hasn't been falsified. There's no reason to think that it
isn't the explantion, and its performing well so for now it will do. But that isn't really "belief" or "faith" as those things are reserved for when we don't have observed evidence to work with.
What if, as I believe, evolution is the continuous creation by a supernatural being, who created and continues to creathe and evolve the natural world?
We can
what if until the cows come home
Sure, make up whatever you wish to believe. For this one, yeah, the scientists would be wrong in their assumption of naturalism and their explanation would be imprecise and incomplete.
What if evolution is the result of the continuous annihlation of non-living existence? Beings could be the evil-one's turds, or whatever. Then you'd be wrong. BFD.
How can sceintists accept a belief in natural selection as superior to my belief in the supernatural's continuous creation as the cause of evolution. Where is the proof?
I feel ya, man. If they're just assuming naturalism and finding explanations that fit, then you can't really say that there's is
superior to yours as they'd both be the same. Stripped down, you're not totally incorrect. But...
The proof is this:
Science works!
I mean, they put a man on the freakin' moon!
Methodological Naturalism yields
results. Its gets things done.
What ifs don't. You're certainly free to play with them, but science's refusal to entertain them doesn't mean that it is giving you the short end of the stick.