naturalists are inherently incapable of critiquing any theory which presupposes miraculous events. This is for the same reason of judicial 'conflict of interest'.
Suppose an accused man was brought before a judge who was his father. If the judge insisted on presiding over the accused he would be forced to step down from the case because of an obvious conflict of interest. The reason this is so is because the accused is likely to be benefited by the judge’s predisposition towards favouring him due to their special relationship. Thus, the judge has an ineradicable favouring towards the accused, therefore the outcome is quite likely to be skewed.
The same is true of atheistic naturalists who wish to pass judgement over creationism.
The most foundation axiom for the atheist is that supernatural events do not exist, and as such the ‘supernatural’ is totally excluded from even consideration. This means that their starting assumption - there is no supernatural events – conflicts with the task at hand - critiquing creationism - because creationism presupposes supernatural events as an axiom of it's model of origins.
The fact that the atheist has an ineradicable disposition against creationism means that his conclusion will be highly skewed; the atheist has a substantial conflict of interest when discussing creationism.