Lately I've been studying argument and counter argument and I have found that creationist/ID arguments aren't so legit as I originally thought, but I've always kinda assumed this while allowing for the possibility that I’m missing something, and that what I might be missing transcends empirical epistemology (as god, by definition, does) and can't be assessed scientifically. But I made a recent realization that scraps that notion, so hear my argument:
If empirical epistemology (scientific realism) is presupposed, then Christianity falls through. A presupposition of empiricism means that propositional logic is an effective means, by way of scientific methodology, to understanding absolute truth. Absolute truth, according to empirical epistemology, is the most necessarily implied set of conclusions based on a full account of all available premises. Premises, in scientific propositional logic, are proven facts, such as the gravitational constant G. These premises are provable when theorized physical phenomena have reality-application in replication. So, because satellites were successfully put into orbit using the gravitational constant G, that constant went from theory to absolute truth (which I will call premise). Scientific metaphysical assertions aren't themselves proven, only necessarily implied by the cache of available proofs at any one time. So today we have a larger cache of premises than before, and our conclusions are therefore more refined, and closer to empirical absolution than before. Science changes, yes, but only in its conclusions as necessarily implied by the AVAILABLE premises. The more the premises, the more necessary the implications (and therefore the more true the conclusions). Now I'm going to sound naive in saying that your textbook metaphysical claims are more empirically true than biblical claims, because they are the conclusions of science rather than religion. This isn't naive, however, since empirical truth is here presupposed, and empirical truths can only be approached empirically. The best approach to ascertaining empirical truth that we have is the scientific method, and our present cache of premises are based on this method of empirical reality. Scientists don't have a bias to prove atheism, or even to deviate from religion. They only have a bias regarding their choice method of ascertaining their biasedly-chosen form of epistemology, via scientific methodology. The necessary outcome of this bias is the set of conclusions presented in science textbooks.
Therefore, Christianity is empirically wrong and science is empirically right. But you don't have to presuppose empiricism, and I doubt that you do. God, to you, transcends what is tangibly conspicuous. But get this, piggybacking on any empirically-transcendent epistemology that uses spiritual experiences as confirmation of absolutes is wrong. This is because every religionist has spiritual experiences, and propositional logic hereby yields multiple conclusions from one premise (spiritual confirmation, or truth ascertained from spiritualism). Spiritual confirmation to beliefs is an example of faulty epistemology, canceling itself out in universal application (i.e., no more necessarily implying one conclusion than another from a single premise or set of premises). Any other non-faulty empirically-transcendent epistemology, like matrix theory, is a matter of personal preference. It’s just as easy to believe we are plugged into the matrix as that we aren’t, based on the available evidence; however, since that can’t get us closer to absolute truth, it’s negligible. In saying that matrix theory is potentially true, I am not a relativist. I believe in absolute truth, but am just as forced as a Christian absolutist to recognize that all my epistemological history could be programmed, or dream-induced, or whatever. Again, this is an epistemological nuance to be discarded in the quest for absolutes, no more detrimental to one epistemology than another. So trashing multi-conclusion-per-premise epistemologies (like spiritual confirmation), deemed faulty, and discarding non-faulty empirically transcendent epistemologies that are useless (like matrix theory), empiricism is all we’ve got. Not we, as in the people of this world, sinning Americans, and dogmatic scientists . it’s all there is to be had regarding truth.
Here's the clincher, though. Certain religions (Christianity) make empirical claims, and therefore can be plugged into the only legitimate epistemological function available, empiricism. Since it is less empirically accurate than science, it is less absolutely true, even though God transcends empirically known truth. So it takes less faith to believe in scientific metaphysics (ie, big bang, evolution, etc.) than in Christianity. It takes the same amount of faith to believe in reincarnation as non-reincarnation, since no present cache of premises point away from that implication, or imply a conclusion counteractive to reincarnation. Reincarnation is an epistemological nuance, however, since it has no empirical base and since any non-empirical foundation it has (gut feeling, spiritual confirmation) is grounded on a premise that yields multiple implications, and therefore cancels out in universal application. So believe what you will about reincarnation, as long as you don't believe the bible.
Potential falsification to this claim would be in showing an epistemology, transcending empiricism, that isn't neglible and doesn't cancel out in universal application. In otherwords, is unique in confirmation of one's beliefs and either passes or bypasses the empirical test.
™ Version 4.2