The only way you could reject it a priori is if you were sure that it actually didn't happen. If that's the case, why bother with any research at all? Why did Darwin have to go halfway around the globe to study finches when all he could have done was slap himself on the forehead and say "Duh! Of course it all happened naturally. It's unscientific to think otherwise."
> The only way you could reject it a priori is if you were sure that it actually didn't happen.
And such certainty is certainly possible. Look at any trial that uses forensic science and yet does not posit that OJ was framed by angry ghosts.
> Why did Darwin have to go halfway around the globe to study finches when all he could have done was slap himself on the forehead and say "Duh! Of course it all happened naturally. It's unscientific to think otherwise."
He was raised - and trained - in a culture that was still mired in superstition. These things can take a whiel to climb out of.