[BroJoeK]

Alamo-Girl: "Jefferson's concept of God is irrelevant, ethics and law both are steeped in our present concept of philosophy and theology, e.g. acceptable behavior, personal responsibility."

Sure, doubtless "Jefferson's concept of God is irrelevant" to you.
But it was certainly not irrelevant to Jefferson, whose list of "natural-sciences" you posted above.

Jefferson's list does not include subjects like theology, metaphysics, ontology, teleology or epistemology.
All of those, in Jefferson's mind, were outside the realm of practical "natural-sciences".

So, the fact that Jefferson did include ethics and law tells us he considered those also as practical natural-sciences, not necessarily requiring reference to theology derived from the Bible.

Point is: I am not at all clear as to why you resist the Thomistic idea that knowledge has two categories: 1) theology based on the Bible and 2) natural-sciences beginning with input from our senses?

[Alamo-Girl]

Point is: I am not at all clear as to why you resist the Thomistic idea that knowledge has two categories: 1) theology based on the Bible and 2) natural-sciences beginning with input from our senses?

That epistemological cut is far too simplistic. Here's a Freeper research project on the subject from 8 years ago to illustrate the wide range of worldviews at that time.