The point is that there is no difference between a creation myth with a god as the active agent and a creation myth with natural processes as the active agent. They are both 'a priori' metaphysical decisions. You already have competing creation myths for naturalism, why do you think that's a problem?
"Or, as in the case of Darwin and others, know what they can show objectively and learn to separate that from personal theological speculation, which is beyond any possible falsification."
Again, an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism is indistinguishable from personal theological speculation. Both sides are beyond falsification, not just the one you happen to oppose.
I see you have a problem understanding the concept. Would that be your 'a priori' commitment to naturalism getting in the way?
Let's see, one was made up, and the other was derived from direct observation (in this case by a man who was highly religious at the time, so no naturalist conspiracy there). They are most definitely not the same.
You already have competing creation myths for naturalism, why do you think that's a problem?
We have theories that can be falsified. A properly constructed creation myth cannot be falsified, thus all such myths are objectively equal.
Only faith differentiates. That is the reason for the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody of ID. Every single argument supporting creation and ID fits the FSM theory; therefore, the FSM theory of design is equally valid, equally unfalsifiable, although it is entirely made-up, a joke. There is nothing in theological "science" that can prevent such a fraud from being on an equal level with sincere beliefs.
Do you see where your attempt to destroy the science that has brought us so much is headed?
Again, an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism
He had no such commitment to naturalism.