Agnostic is a useless term, and historically it originated in the polemics over Darwin’s theory. Hyuxley was opposing his position to the “gnostics,” who were mainly clergymen with scientific interests who until his time dominated discourse. So it is sort of like Marx claims that his socialism was scientific—founded on facts— whereas, the “utopians” were not.
That said. Einstein spoke of God when he meant something like what Plato /Aristotle/the Stoics meant. The god of the philosophers that Pascal disclaimed. But Einstein also rejects the skepticism of a Lucretius, because some sort of ontology is needed for modern science. Even a radical unbeliever like Russell was a realist, who did not accept that rational order is a delusion. Likewise, the Darwinists who however, push an atheism that risks the acceptance of the skepticism from which the Scientific Revolution rescued an educated class disgusted by religious bigotry.
Wow. Do you claim this as your own thoughts or are you going to provide a citation?