You'd think the science community would have heard about it if it had any validity. Or is it just your opinion, your awe at the complexity of things, minus any actual scientific falsification?
I think it was just before we rediscovered that the earth is the center of the universe.
You don't understand that the 'science community' is absolutely committed to the concept of naturalism and the impact of this commitment on the interpretation of observations.
The commitment to naturalism means that the 'science community' will *always* interpret *any* evidence as having risen through 'natural' processes. They have no other choice.
"Or is it just your opinion, your awe at the complexity of things, minus any actual scientific falsification?"
I love it when the naturalists trot out the 'incredulity' argument. It makes such a nice backdrop for their own credulity in believing that the 'awesome complexity of things' just happened for no reason whatsoever.