The 'a priori' adoption of philosophical naturalism for origins theories is simply a reality of 'science'. There is no logical requirement that it be so. It simply is. You are moving back toward the converse fallacy of accident again.
But you have already said that you consider identifying fallacies and non sequiturs in your thinking as 'meaningless drivel', so it's not surprising that you would fall back into it.
I disagree, and subit that disagreement is no less authoritative than anythiing you provided to the contrary.