Pete: " You claim scientific impartiality but your commitment to naturalistic origins amounts to the same thing...a position held by faith.   "

As I have mentioned before, the two positions - science & creationism - are two entirely different systems of determining truth & facts and defining evidence.
When you call a commitment to scientific inquiry 'faith', you are committing the fallacy of "equivocation".... that is, using 'faith' in two different senses. 'Faith' that science works could just be called 'confidence' or 'awareness' ... based on a logical system of testing, refining and constantly re-evaluating data. When you see a flame, you do not have 'faith' that it will burn your fingers.... you know that fire is hot. We can describe the process, measure the intensity, control the effects and predict it's actions.
Faith simply MEANS (or should be generally limited to meaning) a belief that cannot be directly tested and verified. The language exists to clarify different senses of how we think and to explicate carefully what we wish to convey. Slippery use of nomenclature to support your views is often called 'rhetorical language'. (You recognize it when a politician or an advertisement makes sneaky claims & promises.)
   When an advertisement tells you wonderful things, you are usually well advised to doubt & be skeptical... but ads can usually BE tested. Faith in something that cannot be tested & verified also causes doubt.. and you and I (and most others here) treat untestable assertions differently. ...I suppose it will always be so...