I find your use of the word "we" rather presumtuous for someone who has himself made no real contribution to any of this.
You position yourself in an ivory tower, hiding behind references to others and incomprehensible language.
Have fun there.
My professor used to say: If you want to know things for certain, ask a twenty year old. They know everything for certain.
I do admit that I have not contributed to this discussion in substantive way. I have not defended my views, but I've already stated why I think in this case the burden of proof is in you. A better way to reading me would be as asking, "So Kees, why do you believe what you do? I'm curious because as a working scientist, like most working scientist; and as an epistemologist, like most epistemologist, it's rare to find someone holding the position you do." I would like to see some arguments for your position out of curiosity. Your view entails that Creationism and Darwinianism are equally rational, and this is curious to me. Maybe you're right, and if so I want to know. I want to be able to change my views. But you give me no reason to.
Furthermore, I don't get the reference to "hiding behind references." I point you towards others because I happen to agree with their views, and I think they've stated the arguments well. So, I'm a wide open book. No hiding here. If you read the philosophers I tell you to and successfully refute them, then you've refuted me. I don't see the same transparency from you. Where's the argument? Where's the rational discourse? In fact, I've even helped you by suggesting some people who have similar views as you: Duhem and van Frassen. However, I think Musgrave (e.g., 1999) has raised good arguments against both, which you can read for yourself and evaluate.
P.S.: If I have been unclear at any point, please do tell. I'll happily clarify. All I'm asking is what I ask of my students: Provide substantive justification for your views, especially if they are controversial.