Why should religion and science or naturalistic philosophy compete on the same ground? Aren't you dooming theism and religion by presupposing scientism? You want to say that theism provides a stronger "explanation" than naturalism, but after the Scientific Revolution, "explanation" has been defined in science-centered terms. Yet scientists avoid appealing to God or to miracles because that would only be flagrantly pseudoscientific.

For example, substantive explanations have to be somewhat reductive, not just unifying. An explanation has to increase our understanding by avoiding circularity. So you don't explain how life exists by positing yet more life that creates life. That's just circular. And you don't explain anything by saying that a miracle did it, since there's no known mechanism in a miracle, by definition.

So saying that the mysteries in the universe came miraculously from the biggest mystery of all, namely "God," is vacuous as a scientific explanation. It doesn't compete with naturalism.

What you want to say, instead, is that theism is better as a metaphysical explanation. That's what Traditionalists or Thomists like Edward Feser say. The problem there is that science supplanted Scholastic pseudo-philosophy for a reason.