Is isn’t an argument at all. It is an assertion, that can not be verified, or falsified.
Hence, it is meaningless, and thus a subject for religious studies, rather than a subject for science.
Like the Trinity, you can not do a meaningful and repeatable experiment. Religion has often tried to coopt the method of science.
When St Helen went to the Middle East to look for the True Cross, the city fathers of Jerusalem were well prepared. They happily were able to direct her and her group to the site of the cruxifiction. They dug, and dug up not one, not two, but three crosses. But which cross was the True Cross? A woman was produced that complained of headache. They applied cross number 1 to her. She reported no change. They applied cross number 2 to her. She reported no change. They applied cross number 3 to her. She miraculously reported that her headache was HEALED. So, that settled that, Cross number 3 was accepted as the True Cross, and is still on display in the Vatican. Samples have not been made available for recent scientific testing, since the methods of the 4th Century prove its origin beyond any doubt.
Don’t think it cruel that the Church denies healing to all those people around the world with migrain headaches?
Hence, it is meaningless, and thus a subject for religious studies, rather than a subject for science.
You missed the point. The greater question at issue is essentially "who died and made science the end all and be all of 'knowledge'?"
I would say that "science" is not superior to any other method - including religious faith - as a means of understanding origins. Science is, by its very nature, limited in its scope and application, and by its own rules, is completely incompetent to speak as to what actually happened "back then." If empiricism is what you're looking for, then you're going to have to basically dump any hopes that science will be able to tell us what happened, origins-wise. All we have to go on, empirically, is forensic evidences - many of which are more supportive of the YEC interpretation of the data than they are the old earth, materialist evolutionary interpretation. As far as true empiricism? Nope, not gonna get it.
This is why I say that NEITHER creationism nor evolution are "science" in the strictly defined sense most widely meant when people use that term. Both camps use faith - I have no problem with admitting and accepting that.
But no, so far as accepting "science" and the scientific method as some sort of unquestionable arbiter of all that is true and right? Nope, I don't buy it and I'm an completely and thoroughly unwilling to grant "science" that authority. And that's speaking AS a practitioner of the scientific method. I know better than the limitations and foibles of science than do these FReepers running around, flapping their yaps about "science", while sitting behind their desks working as accountants or insurance adjusters of whatnot.