Closely related to objectivity is neutrality. From the article:
"Non-empirical ways of knowing fail to meet worldview neutral standards of epistemic adequacy, which is how we judge between competing ways of knowing."When two parties disagree, we seek a neutral third party to arbitrate. Ideally, there would be some third way between naturalism and supernaturalism.
However, an appeal to "ideally" is really an argument from desire. "I want this, therefore it exists" - which is faulty.
The simple fact is there is no neutral worldview. You are either for God or against God (Matthew 12:30).
So, their "worldview neutral" point is really against God. Then, it is no surprise when they come to the conclusion there is no God. It also allows them to dismiss the theistic position, as "not neutral".
Again we see the underlying idolatry, "which is how we judge". God is the ultimate judge. We seek to usurp His judgment and impose our own.
The only way to judge a worldview is to (provisionally) adopt that worldview, and apply its arguments to their logical conclusions. If the worldview is internally contradictory (it reaches conclusions counter to each other, or counter to its assumptions), then that worldview must be false.