I had this idea come to me during a discussion in a hangout recently. Imagine for a moment that a defense attorney in a murder case used the kind of argument that young earth creationists use against, say, radiometric dating. In response to every piece of evidence presented, they would name all the “assumptions” being made.
Exhibit A: We have the murder weapon, it’s registered to your client and the bullet found in the victim is a ballistics match.
But have you tested every single gun in the world? How do you know that there isn’t another gun out there that would leave the same markings? Aren’t you just assuming that invisible creatures didn’t plant that evidence at the scene?
Exhibit B: We have powder flash from the gun on your client’s sleeve and his fingerprints on the gun.
But aren’t you assuming that there isn’t some supernatural force that created his sleeve with the appearance of powder flash on it? Aren’t you assuming that there wasn’t another person in the room with the same fingerprints that knocked my client out with a drug, knocked him out, carried him here, killed the victim and then planted the powder flash on his sleeve?
Exhibit C: We found your client’s DNA under the fingernails of the victim and it matches scratch marks on the defendant’s arms during a struggle.
That doesn’t prove anything. You’re assuming that my client’s DNA didn’t migrate under the victim’s fingernails through some process science doesn’t understand. Can you prove that both the defendant and the victim weren’t kidnapped by aliens who set it up to make my client look guilty? There’s just so many assumptions in all of this evidence that there’s nothing but reasonable doubt.