I posted a similar statement to this elsewhere, just can't find it now. The FE model and many of its endorsers use shitty science.
What I am saying is, science should be the collection of observations that lead to a feasible answer.
However, a lot of FE theories start at an answer that explains the observations.
Example:
The shadow object.
There is no observable data on this thing, but it does explain lunar eclipses within the FE model.
Anyone else have other examples.