The problem with the natural assumption is that it is the very same thing as the God of the gaps fallacy. That is - it is also fallacious. Think with me for a moment.
Science is great when it comes to analyzing natural processes, repeatable experiment, and so forth. But when it comes to evolution, whether chemical or biological, you
MUST include assumptions about questions pertaining to God. Such theories depend on a designer not being involved.
If you say that you can't include God in science - I agree. If you say you can continue to assess "truth" about nature - without God, I don't agree, because logically, you can now only come to a false conclusion, based on premisses which do not involve a Creator.
If I insist that a ferrari is designed, and have a theory that it is designed by itself, somehow, and I don't include a designer, strictly - then I must come to a conclusion that is natural - yes.
So you must come to a natural conclusion, about something which might not have been naturally created, LOGICALLY.
Therefore parsimony isn't quite the truth of the matter - the truth of the matter is that science can't include God, and rightfully so - but humans nevertheless want science to answer questions about origins.
My conclusion is that you are asking too much from science, when it is infact much more effective on a smaller scale. This is why big theories that pertain to big philosophical questions, will never hold the logical weight of pure science. (edit. I should add that yes I am aware that pure science on a smaller scale, also logically assumes that God isn't necessarily involved. However - I will let you figure out the rest. Rest-assured, I have thought it all through, as per usual.)
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2