[GourmetDan]

The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process. You merely confirm my statment.

As you have admitted, there are no facts that cannot be interpreted in both a creation and an evolutionary framework, therefore evolution remains metaphysical.

[atlaw]

So your point is that inference from physical evidence is always unwarranted because it is inherently unreliable. Is that correct?

[Stultis]

The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process.

Wait. You said it was the fact that past, unobserved events were the subject of inquiry that made something "metaphysical". Now you're saying that reviewing and drawing conclusions from evidence is "metaphysical".

Which is it? The latter would make ALL of science "metaphysical," since the logic of drawing inferences, or testing theories, is the same regardless of when the subject events occurred. (And, as noted by the jury example, the former would make many things considered purely rational to be metaphysical.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process."

Please tell us what YOU think metaphysical means.

[Virginia-American]

The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process. ...

The judge's charge is to weigh the evidence and testimony. This is a reality-based, not a metaphysical, exercise.

PS: what definition of "metaphysics" are you using here?