So no Scientist (thus all Scientists are “evolutionists” according to your definition) can explain a phenomenon by saying “Goddidit” and still be a Scientist, he has just become a theologian.
What practical difference could it make in the application of of knowledge to technology whether the cause of a physical phenomena were natural or supernatural? Whatever the cause, the physical laws of the universe are still the same and systems obey them the same way.
It seems the entirety of the technological world we live in was derived from the latter not the former.
How so? It's only comparatively recently that the adherence to the naturalistic philosophy has been demanded of scientists. Lots of technology, not to mention scientific discoveries, were accomplished by men who totally believed that the cause of natural phenomena was God.
Just how does one's opinion of the cause hinder their application of knowledge in the form of technology?
Now you are making the error of the 'fallacy of equivocation'.
Technology does not equate to naturalism, nor does it logically follow that naturalism is true because natural physical laws exist. To claim that technology supports naturalism is rather foolish.
"So no Scientist (thus all Scientists are “evolutionists” according to your definition) can explain a phenomenon by saying “Goddidit” and still be a Scientist, he has just become a theologian."
Exactly the point. Scientists are, by definition, philosophical naturalists. They are constrained by their belief to material answers, no matter how outrageous, no matter how close to magic they are. Thus, their statements should not be relied on as support for evolution. It is a consequence of their belief-system. Science does not have truth. It is philosophical naturalism.