For Joralex - Metaphysics, Science, & Evolution

Maybe we could expand the topic a bit for others who have criticised the scientific metaphysical presuppositions.I'd like a creationist to propose their alternate methodology/epistomology that they feel is superior to materialism. The challenge is, such a methodology can't just say what can be known - it has to say, like naturalism does, how it is that you know what you know.So, Joralex, or anybody else who cares to challenge naturalism: if your methodology is so great at finding out things that naturalism can't, what methodology do you use to determine the difference between those additional bits of knowledge that are true and those that are made up?

Yeah, exactly. I guess I'd like Joralex or any other anti-naturalist to propose a better standard for objectivity than "if we both can't see it, it probably isn't real." (That's the simple version. ) I have yet to hear a better standard - certainly "if it's in the Bible, it's real" or "you won't know it's real until you believe it's real" don't even begin to cut it.