Forensic techniques were applied to the investigation of the two murders. Was this a reasonable method of determining what happened in the absence of established witnesses? Were the conclusions reached beyond "reasonable doubt"? How many ways can you duck the question?
The hard-core creationist, desperate to discredit evolution, is only too delighted to invent his own definition of science ("reproducable lab results only"), which includes only physics and chemistry. Thus, all knowledge of the past is impossible, because we can't re-create it in the lab. No fair looking at presently-available evidence and reasoning how it came to be -- oh no -- that's not science. So then ... ta da! ... evolution isn't science (nor is astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, or cosmology). Simple, huh? The creationoids win!
Unfortunately for the creationoids, their intellectual weapon of mass destruction has consequences that they might not like. We can't re-create the Genesis account in the lab either. We can't re-create the miracle of the loaves and fishes in the lab. We can't re-create anything described in the bible. So along with evolution, we'd have to toss out stuff the creationoid doesn't want to toss out. When presented with this uncomfortable consequence of their "only reproducable results are acceptable" principle, the creationoid will manage to tap-dance away.