That is probably wise, strategically.
No matter what date you suggest, scientific progress has accelerated since then so its hard to argue that this philosophy has not resulted in progress for mankind.
You were clearly headed down the track of proposing a red herring argument. I merely had to wait for you to expose it yourself.
"No matter what date you suggest, scientific progress has accelerated since then so its hard to argue that this philosophy has not resulted in progress for mankind."
Conflating technological progress with 'after-the-fact storytelling' is the same thing another poster tried. Apparently this is either the only argument available to naturalists or the only one they can think of given critical-thinking abilities impaired by the 'a priori' assumption of naturalism.