I do indeed think that empiricism is the only way to acquire intersubjective knowledge rather than beliefs. If you think you have access to other ways of acquiring knowledge, that is perfectly fine with me, but I’m under zero obligation to accept such ‘knowledge’, consider it in any way scientific, or even grant it the status of knowledge rather than belief.
I think you’re well off-base with perceiving a problem between this view and Peaceful Science. My understanding of what PS tries to do is to find space for peaceful co-existence of both empirical science and personal beliefs (based on religious writings, traditions and presumed relevation etc.). I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am totally on-board with that.
Historical Adam & Eve is possible because it finds space in the scientifically unknown (and perhaps unknoweable?) to slot in certain religious beliefs. I don’t think there is a claim of scientific evidence for HA&E - just the claim that science allows and doesn’t disprove such a concept. I agree with that and I have no intention to argue against it, just as I have no intention to argue against the philosophy of ID.
Is this really so hard to understand as you make it out to be? Do other people struggle to get my point?