There may of course be atheists who don't appeal to Darwinism. I haven't done a survey. I'm sure you would be happy to provide me a list. Ones with whom I'm familiar - Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett, Anthony Flew (before his conversion to belief in an intelligent Creator), and more - do make such an appeal, however.

Disagree with you about the modern synthesis, which didn't “clearly demonstrate” anything; it may have made some suggestions, which were appealing to those who formulated it. (It's possible, however, that I may be confusing the original synthesis with statements made by some of its advocates following on in its wake.)

'Intelligent design' is indeed a very tricky term, which would require a detailed exploration. I don't believe, however, that it can be simply dismissed out of hand. I indeed to discuss it up to a point in a future article.

As far as I can tell Darwin offered no explanation whatsoever for the creation of life, merely how life evolved after it had been 'created'.

I know that what I say about Brahman is 'off', as you put it. But it would be irritating to readers if every time I used the word, I had to provide an explanatory note along the lines of what you say here. If an accurate 'description' of Brahman is existence-consciousness-bliss, then I'm assuming that this is not a person, therefore impersonal is as good a word as any to describe it. I have no problem with calling this consciousness 'pure spirit', but if you think it's a big deal, then I'll try to use 'consciousness' instead, but can't make a definite promise, if it doesn't make sense in context.