The point, after all, was and remains that the nature of this “evidence” rests on the metaphysical and philosophical assumptions that are in the main identical in nature to arguments from design. Cosmologists are aware of this. But as the presence of fine-tuning, the lack of naturalness, seemingly special initial conditions, and so forth have and continue to serve in physics in general as guideposts to better theories (more simply, they “cry out” for explanations), and as cosmology has since Einstein become a respected field of physics as opposed to philosophy, many if not most working on such problems make use of the same intuitions. This is particularly true of those I work more closely with of the specialists whose areas of expertise involve cosmological matters (namely, those coming out of particle physics and some of the more obscure areas in mathematical physics, quantum information, etc., such as the developing field of RQI as it relates to e.g., schemes for particle detectors or black holes).
