Nope, only if they are past, unobserved and not repeatable, like evolution.
Evos merely want to include metaphysical 'explanations' as though they are *facts* because it allows the deception to be continued.
Without deception, the facade crumbles.
So, criminal forensics is "metaphysical" again. Although eyewitness testimony isn't. Even though there's a wealth of evidence showing that physical forensic evidence of "past, unobserved" events is typically MORE factually dependable than eyewitness testimony.
Also, you never answered on this "past, unobservable" criteria: Are Newton's Laws of Motion, and the many other scientific laws which lack any directional preference as to time, "metaphysical" or not?
Evos merely want to include metaphysical 'explanations' as though they are *facts* because it allows the deception to be continued.
No. Just the opposite, in fact. We've consistently distinguished facts, on the one hand, and explanations of facts on the other. Your constant wavering over your criteria for what is "metaphysical" suggests that your unable to keep the fact/explanation distinction in your mind.