On your first point, there is a well known quote from Richard Dawkins, that Darwin enabled him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Unless he was using words very badly, this suggests that he started off wanting to be an atheist, and interpreted biology to fit in with his wishes.

This also seems to be true of Darwin himself. His theological position is far from clear, drifting between deism and materialism. There's an interesting chapter in Tom Bethell's Darwin's House of Cards called 'Darwin and the Philosophy of Materialism'. I've also alluded to this in an earlier article: https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/happy-birthday-to-alfred-russel-wallace-3b81bce53a26

Here's an extract quoting Intelligent Evolution by Michael Flannery, which is essentially a republishing of Wallace's The World of Life: a Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose with an introduction:

“Darwin’s theory, despite his claims to the contrary, was not based on the scientific method. Rather he started with a materialist worldview “that served both as the lens through which he made his observations of the natural world and then as the framework into which he made them fit” (Pxiv). This led him to make “unwarranted scientific speculations, and reckless extrapolations buttressed by bad philosophy” (Pxvi).

I know that both writers are severe critics of Darwinism, so that they would say that, wouldn't they? I don't need that pointing out to me.

=

“The more you know about how nature works the more it is clear that there is no teleology other than a solipsistic one”.

Is a solipsistic teleology teleology or not? Presumably it's a watered down form of teleology. It may be at the heart of Hinduism and Buddhism, but are they the be-all-and-end-all in theological matters? Perhaps they are just two blindfolded philosophers who haven't yet seen the whole elephant.

In any case can you offer a watertight scientific proof that there is no teleology other than a solipsistic one? If you're going to refer to the conclusions of the Synthesis, the authors of which were probably committed materialists, then it can still be argued that they are merely prisoners in Plato's cave, looking at shadows on a wall.

Your statements that “you can start counting anywhere on the circle” doesn't make any sense to me”. If matter is a form of energy, how can you start from matter?

That's all I have time for now. Will have a look at your references at some point.