We may dispute what Darwin felt or thought in the privacy of his study — but the bulk of his writings fall clearly into advocating for one perspective: naturalism.
Scholarship on Spinoza in the last decade has increasingly recognized that he opposed the observational (empirical) and mathematical analyses of nature.
Peter Atkins is right that science can answer the biggest question we can ask. His problem is that he doesn’t like the answer science provides.
What is inevitable here is not the mathematical beauty of physical law, but the circumlocutions scientists use to evade design in nature.
It’s too bad biologists are not as open about crises in their theories. It’s the sign of a healthy science.