dogma does not belong in science is itself dogmatic and does not need proof, and may be set off to the side and ignored. That doesn't mean it is part of a non-trivial axiomatic system.
The statement “dogma does not belong in science” is not a statement about the natural world, hence it is not a “scientific” statement. It is a philosophical statement *about* science and the “scientific method.”
On the other hand, the statement, “life arose by purely naturalistic mechanisms with no intelligent design whatsoever,” *is* a statement about the natural world. So is the statement, “Intelligent Design cannot be found in nature.” Those are *scientific* statements, and they are perfectly legitimate *hypotheses*, but they are often asserted as *premises* for science right here in FR.
As I said, many hard-core evolutionists (i.e., pure naturalists) do not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a premise. Worse yet, many of them do not understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion. Hence their rejection of ID is both their premise *and* their conclusion — like the verdict in a kangaroo court.