It sounds to me like you are talking to some extent about pantheism. I would describe my self as a an agnostic atheist pantheist. I do view the universe and the laws that govern it as a kind of higher power that can be considered God. But I don't pray to Physics, Biology, ect. I would advise against deriving person spirituality from science. It is something that should be understood better through trial and error.

Yes I'd say they could be,or you could use the word "creator" which has less religious overtones,they are just words at the end of the day we all use different words depending on our beliefs.

I think in order for nature to be a "god" it would at least require consciousness and conscious intent.

Yes, they are the same thing, although the term "god" imagines that the forces of nature are conscious, intelligent and aware, which of course is not the case.

I see nature as an evolutionary process that brought us to now. God to me is a man made construct to fill in the gaps of knowledge with faith for justice.

If religious freedom is to be upheld, we get to decide our own definition of god. "God" is a pretty good metaphor for nature in my book. I believe in metaphor. Metaphor exists!

Well, worshiping nature can become an issue when people start using an idealized version of nature as a model of how things should be... As an example, people using nature as a moral compass, saying that the survival of the fittest or the law of the strongest is natural and as such a good thing (or at least something not to oppose); nature can be used to justify pretty much anything, from rape to social exclusion, passing by dam-building (yes, I'm referring to you, beavers!).

No. Nature is real and proven.

in a Pantheistic way yes ( I suppose )