"Do you judge them just as harshly for teaching gravitational theory as purely naturalistic? Are you aware that science seeks only naturalistic explanations for observations?"
Gravity is repeatable. Therefore, it is subject to experimentation, and public acceptance or refutation. And, even in gravity, it is the equation, not the model, that can be determined by experiment.
Evolution is not so. Evolution is a historical argument, where you can only get to evolution by having naturalistic assumptions. I don't need naturalistic assumptions to get to gravity. I can calculate the equation from the data. Whether or not supernatural forces are at play is not truly dealt with in science, only that the equation is repeatable within a margin of error. However, for evolution, we have to take naturalism a priori in order to justify the claims of evolution.
The roll of the dice in Vegas aren't repeatable. But "dice theory" I'm sure is studied in that town and is a real science. I assure you that dice, and odds, exist.
Same with evolution. The theory describes it's actions, and like it's impossible to predict what will come up on the die, the fact that something will always come up with dice and evolution is a forgone conclusion.
you can repeat an observation of gravity. things fall down. even a detailed observation. things fall with a constant acceleration that is the same, regardless of weight. The speed of a falling object may be altered by the resistance of the air to its passage.
the theory of gravity, which leads to conclusions about the motion of the planets the existence of vast regions of microgravity where there is no predominate "down", on the other hand is something I doubt you have directly observed.
It is only through your godless materialism that you discount, a priori, the Angelic Push (AP) theory of gravity, which posits that gravity is really Angels pushing things here and there. AP theory is scientific! Teach the controversy!