Once again, the definition of the word "science" is: natural explanations for natural processes.
So science itself is uninterested in the philosophical question of: "what is, is" except as that question bears on the scientifically valid question of "what works".
But what if the relevant causes are not "natural" causes?
Your statement utterly rejects this possibility, dismisses it out of hand.
So we shouldn't even "go look and see whether this may not be the case."
Am I getting this right, dear BroJoeK?
Sigh. Sometimes I think Neo-Darwinists are basically just in the "censorship of Nature" business....