Related issue, does anyone seriously argue that Darwin's the agnosticism is not related to embracing a closed naturalistic system to explain all phenomena?
It always amuses me how some insist that it is possible to believe that God "used" evolution to bring about the biological world, When asked how that is possible, they cite, "well so-snd-so belives it." When pressed for the actual argument of how this works, however, there isn't any argument there, just some more feel-good ad hominems.
Yes. Many scholars think Darwin's ultimate rejection had more to do with the horrific death of his beloved daughter, Annie. Darwin himself attributed it to his abhorrence of the doctrine of damnation. In any case Darwin was exposed to "free thinkers," both in his own family, and at University (Edinburgh, which he attended before the much more pious Cambridge) and through the social circle of his older brother, Erasmus, long before he mooted the origin of species, but he remained a believer nevertheless.
It always amuses me how some insist that it is possible to believe that God "used" evolution to bring about the biological world, When asked how that is possible, they cite, "well so-snd-so belives it." When pressed for the actual argument of how this works, however, there isn't any argument there, just some more feel-good ad hominems.
It appears you haven't read anything by thoughtful theistic evolutionists. I'll give you some recommendations when I have time.
Quickly googling, for the moment, here (pdf file) is a lecture by one notable, Simon Conway Morris.
When Darwin left on the Beagle, he was very much the normal Christian of the time, in fact studied Theology at university, and was particularly enamored of Paley's argument for an Intelligent Designer. At the time of his departure he was what we would now class as an IDist. His agnosticism did not develop until his return. Although some doubt crept in during the voyage he spent the voyage compiling an enormous amount of raw data (and keeping meticulous notes) which he didn't seriously consider until a while after returning to England. The first years were spent in identifying and cataloging specimens.
"It always amuses me how some insist that it is possible to believe that God "used" evolution to bring about the biological world, When asked how that is possible, they cite, "well so-snd-so belives it." When pressed for the actual argument of how this works, however, there isn't any argument there, just some more feel-good ad hominems.
Since God is supposedly all powerful, how is it possible that he couldn't use Evolution? I believe your question is more precisely - How could someone not take the Bible literally.
Easy, they worship God and not the Bible.
What really amazes me is that Biblical literalists are more willing to believe that there exists some all powerful, all knowing ethereal 'mind' that is not only capable of creating life but the entire Universe while still failing to insert any kind of consistency into the Biblical creation stories, but are unwilling to believe that mechanisms such as trial and error, which humans use 'all he time' and which have been observed in nature can actually be used by nature.