Yes, namely people who are capable of observing, testing, and critically assessing evidence about the universe, whether it is preached to them by evolutionists, or self-evident as revelaed by the so-called laws of nature.
. . . the universe is larger than science.
Of course it is. but science does not have anything to observe but the known universe, which operates in a meanful enough way to be observed, comprehended, described, and assimilated to a small degree by the human mind, all of which is decent evidence that the universe is a designed entity.
It is not routinely observed that scientists are terribly delinquent in policing their own a priori assumptions. . .
Am I to conclude from this that science is incapable of bias? Is it incumbent upon science to declare that only "natural" explanations are qualified as explanatory of the universe when the word "natural" only means what is commonly known and observed? Is that not like choking a horse while urging it to run? You have demonstrated well that you fail to police your own a-priori assumptions. As I said, I hope you are not a professional scientist or a teacher.
Am I to conclude from this that science is incapable of bias?
How do you derive from the claim that science is good at policing it's biases that it is incapable of bias--unless you are more interesting in scoring propaganda points than in making sense?
Is it incumbent upon science to declare that only "natural" explanations are qualified as explanatory of the universe when the word "natural" only means what is commonly known and observed?
Well, no--if you have stated your question correctly. But when scientists are yanked away from their work to tell yet another loony-infested schoolboard what science is, they generally point out that all scientific theories are provisional, and will forever be open to question, and will often also point out that scientific explanations, due to their limited scope of interest only in material evidence, has no competence whatsoever concerning metaphysical explanations of the universe.
You have demonstrated well that you fail to police your own a-priori assumptions. As I said, I hope you are not a professional scientist or a teacher.
You have demonstrated well that being patronizing and snotty is one possible tactic for trying to give your reasoning the patina, if not the actuality of substance.