Welcome back to the debate, bill. Your saying that science and creationism are two different things would be likened saying science and evolutionism are two different things. It just depends on which side of the debate you are on. Your description of how faith is defined, perfectly fits the belief in all from nothing via no one story. There is no evidence for it.   Therefore I don't see that I used equivocation,....except that atheists have greater faith, because they reject intelligent agency!    Seems to me that you are the one equivocating since you bait and switch operative science with origins science.    You can test a flame by burning your finger, but you can't test the past. All you got is what remains to the present...which may be variously interpreted, and a scientists presuppositions, and inculturation among other things may colour the conclusions arrived at by considering the data.    We could also make conclusion about the past based on how things work in the present. For example no one doubts that if they found a watch....thank you paley...on the ground, that there was a designer and watchmaker. That would not change, even if the timepiece had become faulty or even broken.   I read that one of the DNA discoverers said that .....you should not let the appearance of design make you think it was.........or words to that effect.    A good example of not letting the evidence get in the way of atheist presuppositions. All the time though those creationists have no evidence or scientific reasoning!!!!