I immediately noticed that OP post makes a justified accusation of how naturalism is a faith that passes itself off as science.

Cue all the skepticism being directed only at creationism.

Naturalism is a belief supported by faith.

So often they use an argument that starts with how there's no way to objectively test the existence of God, and rightly charge that assuming god must exist is a belief rooted in faith.

They however seem blind to the fact that the untestability means faith is required for EITHER assumption. The end result is that they basically take it that because their beliefs don't include the supernatural, places of worship, sacraments, or other visibly religious practices, that their own beliefs are unquestionable science and not a faith resting on their personal biases.

In other words, naturalists are blind to their own bias.

Now some terminology confusion. A lot of people use "evolution" where they would more appropriately use "naturalism." The key reason for this is that evolution is the primary process being extrapolated, in a form of static analysis that goes "creatures are changing, so this process must go backwards all the way explaining all diverse life."