Yes, I object to the “faith” bit. I hold to empiricism not through faith but because it seems to work and it’s necessary to science. If empiricism is not a valid assumption, science doesn’t work. But empirically (!) it does seem to work. It may be that empiricism can’t haul itself up by its bootstraps, but it sure does seem like it does. Faith does not seem relevant.
But he’s wrong, isn’t he? On that we can agree. I would argue that his position can objectively be seen to be wrong, if only because he can’t construct an explanation of the world’s data that fits his assumptions, while you can (at least within the realm of evolution vs. creation; or at least I could).
Incidentally, Michael, elsewhere, seems to be claiming the converse of what he said above. He’s saying not that we see the world through our biases but that what we see in the world is compatible with both our models of it. I would claim that if you look closely that isn’t true.