One of the refreshing things for me from this thread (aside from the fact that all of the major viewpoints have a lot of good company) has been to see that there are a lot of different combinations of possibilities and that many of us don't fit 100% neatly into whatever category we find ourselves. You don't have to be precisely a young-earth creationist, or precisely in the theistic evolution category, or precisely in the naturalistic evolution category. And a lot of us aren't.
A lot of us don't START with a doctrine (i.e., a rationalist structure).
I think Francis Bacons' approach is entirely appropriate for science — provided we respect the fact (as Bacon did) that the scientific method is not appropriate for all phenomena, but only empirical ones; and thus God in particular cannot be an object for science in principle.
Putting it crudely, Bacon thought that God is not "threatened" by science in any way; for it couldn't touch Him in the first place.