Dawkins and Coyne are biologists, Dennett dabbles in philosophy of biology, I'm not familiar with Flew. Hence it is obvious that those three above would use biology as a basis for their conclusions, i.e. why there is no intelligent creator in the classical sense (I will return to this later).

Darwin indeed didn't talk about how life came into being only about evolution of species. Modern synthesis which combined Darwin's and Mendel's work with theories of abiogenesis etc. then deals with life and its evolution in its entirety. Chemical and biological evolution are a fact that was experimentally demonstrated and experiments on abiogenesis are currently in the phase where they can synthesize protocells albeit still not living. I say give them time.

Now, Brahman. First, yes, it is not person, but it is personal. That’s a huge difference. Second, talking about it in any terms is basically a futile enterprise. It cannot be found neither as an "object out there" nor as an "object within". Talking about it as consciousness etc., although that describes it quite to the point, has the same implications. That's also the reason why no one to date found consciousness that can be measured or observed. So, talking about it as a spirit is particularly misleading, because you won't find any spirit out there (or within) and what a spirit even is (with consciousness we are at least all somewhat familiar, no matter the level of said familiarity).

Similarly, you won't find a classical intelligent creator neither "out there" nor anywhere else (in any form!). Graham Pemberton is Brahman. In its entirety. Even your physical body is it (QM clearly demonstrates that information is energy is matter). Brahman is self-regulating and self-transforming and it is absolutely everything. Science, the one you so vehemently oppose, then nailed those processes pretty accurately. Thus, it does not bother me how you talk about Brahman provided you actually know what Brahman is.