Does a jury have to observe a crime before convicting?
So how do you think Darwin would do in a trial?
Does a jury determine what does or does not constitute direct observations germane to the practice of empirical science? It is precisely because human observation is subject to weakness and direct observation is unavailable to the jury that criminal justice is not an exact science. The information involved in organizing matter for the purpose of performing specific functions may reasonably be construed as evidence of intelligent design. The "jury" of western science has been disinclined to deduce chaos and undirected causes when it comes to those things science is capable of observing.