Who gets to choose the metaphysics?
We can, but we should not then complain about the consequences if they are not good. This choice can be seen as a larger experimental process that embraces both supernatural and natural.
There may even be a range of possibilities available to us today because we don’t know enough yet. Sometimes philosophies have to confess when they are stumped.
Ultimately, we would approach a posited explanation the same way something like, say, the theory of relativity was approached. Let’s treat it as though it were true and look at what follows; the fruit proves out what you are calling the tree.
In my case I have discovered the bald statement “God is love” explains a whole lot. It orients the entire scripture and gives place to a lot of details. The “why” question also tells us how far we need to go in discussing the “what.” One of the biggest pitfalls we can get into when discussing such things is to discuss them for the sake of pride and not love. Big, angry, snotty wringle-wrangles like what appear in this thread result. I think we do not even NEED to answer the OEC/YEC dichotomy definitively to have a very robust Christian life. I lean OEC because of Romans 1:20 (OEC models give us a deeper display of God’s glory to be amazed at) but I don’t beat anyone over the head with it.