Pete... yes, Newton presupposing a creator WAS acting unscientifically. The same can be said about Descartes, who did presuppose one in order try to construct a logical proof.

And yes.. presupposing NO creator is also an error of sorts, but of a different type. It is a logical error, since one cannot prove a negative. Any good scientist merely shrugs and says "I see no compelling evidence for a sentient creator."

"...the obvious ie that anything that comes into existence must have a sufficient cause."

Umm... at the point of the consideration of an absolute, ultimate '1st cause', that 'obvious' point gets a bit shaky. What you get is a logical "infinite regress" as the idea of causes of causes of causes gets to be a blur. Simply stating that "God WAS the first" doesn't solve it. That answer may 'satisfy' some people, but IF the rule about sufficient cause is correct, then even a god must have a cause. In a pure absence of anything, why would there BE a god?
   We simply can't reasonably make claims about it all. Even physicists and astronomers are merely guessing as they try to imagine a scientific way to approach the "beginning".

And, sure... Jewish scribes were mostly pretty careful... *smile*... at copying what they were told. Not only that, but those differences were NOT all "mostly minor". There are errors in translation that cast doubt on even what the original written accounts TRIED to say.