Your argument is a plausible retcon of the bible, but the "God made it that way" mechanism is essentially infinitely flexible and unfalsifiable. The problem with that is for many people, falsifiability is an important aspect of evidence-based belief (judged by predictive or explanatory value).
Even if your explanation for why there are fossils etc. sounds sort of reasonable, if you grant this reinterpretation of the Christian creation myth, you've established that the goalposts can be moved, and from there you can find a way to move them for just about anything. Imagine we uncover a convincing, contemporaneous writing of Jesus' proclamation that he is merely a human. You could say, "Well God put that writing there to test our faith."
I think the issue is how one is valued over the other. Science's "proof" is based on an assumption(s), and then faith is put into those. To say to someone of religious faith "you can't bbe right because we have proof" completely overlooks science's base assumption, and dismiss the possibilty that said assumption(s) might be off target.
Yes. It's a fine line. None the less faith is faith regardless of how well you rationalize it.
Science's "assumption" is that you can understand the world through repeated and verifiable observation. Faith, on the other hand, is the excuse people give for believing in something when they don't have a good reason.
Even if your explanation for why there are fossils etc. sounds sort of reasonable, if you grant this reinterpretation of the Christian creation myth, you've established that the goalposts can be moved, and from there you can find a way to move them for just about anything. Imagine we uncover a convincing, contemporaneous writing of Jesus' proclamation that he is merely a human. You could say, "Well God put that writing there to test our faith."