It didn't take any time at all. That's how it is with self-evident truth. It's instantly evident. You can't face that but must avoid answering the question in any way possible.
Now either Lewontin is correct and there is an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism or 'science' is free to explore the evidence and ID may rightfully conclude that what is observed may be the result of a supernatural creator.
That's *if* science is not 'a priori' philsophical naturalism. Sadly it is and you avoiding the issue proves it.
A fallacy of ambiguity, conflating the methodological naturalism of the scientific method with the metaphysical naturalism of atheists.