Your own particular version of a supernatural component, I imagine. But whatever you mean by it: let's say scientists do presuppose that. What are they supposed to do with that presupposition? How does it change their practice of science, or their reporting of their findings? Should they stop looking for an all-natural explanation at some point? How do they know where? Or do they keep looking and reporting but just make sure to mention God at some point in their papers?
When we venture beyond observational science into the more speculative realm of origins, whereby to extrapolate backwards we must make assumptions about uniformity (constancy of speed of light, assumptions about decay rates, assumption about original parent-daughter ratios to name a few), we necessarily must cross that blurry boundary between science and philosophy.
My own opinion for whatever it's worth is that the proper disposition for the observer, a human being living within a miniscule sphere of space-time, is one of great humility. This we can derive from the vastness of the universe, and from our self-awareness - something which does not lend itself well to purely mechanistic origins. We would do well to remember that ancient adage that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble, and are justified in using that measuring rod (humility) in evaluating others.
I'll be more explicit: To do science we need to make axiomatic assumptions not themselves subject to the scientific method. We must assume, for example, that 2+2=4. We must assume the law of noncontradiction. By making those assumptions we implicitly assume a Lawgiver over an ordered universe since it would make no sense that these truths would stand on their own, just sort of floating out there with no rhyme or reason in the epistemological ether....