Scientism - as defined by the OP - is the faith-based acceptance of the FINDINGS (ie: certain interpretations by certain flawed men) as fact.
This de facto makes you a proponent of Scientism by the way you phrased your own definition.
The findings you have placed faith in are interpretations of flawed men. These interpretations include the purported meaning of scriptural passages and their alleged contradictions with modern scientific models.
Science: You and I observe lights in the night sky that appear to move across the sky over the earth, and appear in the same locations a year later.
One interpretation: The lights are giant fireballs, and it is the earth that spins underneath them.
If this is an allusion to astronomy, it would certainly be the case that the available empirical information is consistent with the model. There are aspects of educated guesswork and filling in the blanks by inference, but on closer observations (more refined data) we can make more accurate assessments with more certainty.
Genesis 1:2... Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
I understand "the deep" and "the waters" to be the blob of waters from which the earth would eventually be formed.
2 Peter 3:5... But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." - 2 Peter 3:5-7 KJV
There are diferrent approaches that can be taken with Gen 1:2 & 2 Peter 3:5.
1) Gen 1:2 could be entirely figurative, as there is no such thing as literal formless water or any other literal formless localized thing. The only thing that can be literally formless is something that is omnipresent.
2) This could be a description of different kinds of masses being transmuted out of water.
3) This could also be a description of physical forms emerging from water, out of solution.
4) Peter's "water" isn't talking about H2O, but the water of life, aka the Holy Spirit. And the following verse isn't talking about Noah's flood.
5) 2 Pet 3 is just a description of the separation of land and water and isn't informative of anything specific in terms of creation chronology.
6) Something other, because the first five interpretations aren't exhaustive.
I see your interpretation as some kind of type 2). It's possible but not necessary.
Do you understand it the same way? If not, how do you understand "the deep" and "the waters"? What do those phrases refer to in your understanding, Jocund?
If you are following from interpretation 2), I see your way as a possible interpretation. I still see it as a mystery for precisely what is meant by some of the creation account. If you are suggesting it is not a mystery because you feel that your interpretation would be necessarily true (as the only possible case) then we would have a different understanding.
To point out the broader strokes, this is my understanding of your flow of thought here:
A) scripture is necessarily true
B) scripture verse X necessarily means XYZ
C) popular scientific models are necessarily mutually exclusive to XYZ
D) therefore popular scientific models are necessarily wrong
My contention is with point B) (and therefore also the conclusion in D). And the only corrections I would make are to change the "necessarily" in B) and D) to "possibly".
I think the moment this is brought into focus, if you agree that there are other possible interpretations than the ones you hold, it follows that we should first determine the range of possible interpretations, and from there determine which possible interpretations feel compelling or uncompelling (and why).
If it is possible that God created everything using evolution, etc. it is then up to the person rejecting evolution to explain why they feel it is uncompelling. Do they feel that dinosaur bones and erosion lines disagree with the conclusion that evolution happened? Then that in itself is a practice in your definition of "scientism" by asserting observational assumptions as fact. Weighing the evidence with bad methodology is still a practice of trying to weigh the evidence.
There is a flip side requiring an explanation for why evolution should be considered compelling/trustworthy. The answer usually comes back to 1) the models are esteemed to be consistent with available empirical data, 2) the scientific culture is considered to be reliable insofar as there is no apparent political meddling, 3) the test results that establish the data are hypothetically repeatable.
It's often a YEC position to accept speciation/micro-evolution as a concept, but to reject macro-evolution. Macro-evolution as a concept is just micro-evolution projected backwards.
It gets interesting because if we look at the last part of 2 Peter 3:4 "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Which means that by scripture, if we accept micro-evolution we should also accept macro-evolution. Or at least, there can be a compelling case within scripture to make this observation.
If there is sufficient empirical evidence to suggest speciation and micro-evolution, it follows that macro-evolution is an extrapolation from that data (the model has empirical support).
The choices to diminish that perspective are either try to necessitate some interpretation where: 1) billions of years worth of happenings was somehow impossible, or; 2) that the method for creation was necessarily spontaneous.
1
