Creationism is certainly bunk as a scientific model, but that begs the question in favour of scientific or rational standards of assessing possibilities.

What I'm saying in the article is that the ant's level of rationality would be powerless to fathom what I was doing in helping it with a twig. So how do we know we're not in a similar situation? Our rationality tells us we're not, but just as the ant misses something by trusting its limited cognitive powers, we might be missing something by trusting ours.

I understand your point about how religions try to tear down secular humanism with dubious allegations about how we all have religious faith in something. I'm somewhere in the middle on that issue, on existentialist grounds. If you think it's impossible to idolize reason, that probably means you're idolizing it by precluding criticisms of it. Positivism was indeed an overestimation of reason.