Not necessarily.
Since a natural explanation neither requires nor assumes
any extraneous entity or agent, then by definition, it is the most parsimonious. If you assume gods or aliens or time travellers, you then have to define those entities, find evidence of them, explain from where they came and how. Considering a complete lack of evidence in them, it seems premature, at best, to accept a proposition as true that requires their presence.
Can this lead to an incorrect idea being held as true? Sure, and in fact it has. However, more often than not, it leads to the correct answer. So, for me (or most "evolutionsists") to change our minds and accept a theory that requires some agent or entity for it to work, we will ask for evidence that this entity or agent exists, or at least some evidence that our current non-entity requiring theory can't be right. We've been asking for 150 years collectively, and myself for at least 20, and I have not been shown any.
If you guys think that this does not apply to evolution, that it is somehow exempt from any presuppositions then this just becomes undebateable.
You're right, evolution rests of presuppositions and axioms. These presuppositions are:
1) What we see in the world is, in fact, an accurate reflection of reality.
2) Logic is a valid method for deriving conclusions.
3) The scientific method is a valid method for deriving conclusions where pure logic does not work. (The scientific method itself rests largely on premise 2, but that's sort of beside the point.)
4) Occam's Razor is a valid method for determining which, of competing explanations, is most worthy of looking into. (Again, this rests largely on 2, but there it is.)
If you have a problem with any of these presuppositions, please feel free to debate them...though a new thread may be called for.
If you believe that there is a premise I missed that evolution requires, please feel free to add it. Again, it may cause debate, so a new thread may be required.