I would take it as tacit agreement with, and avoidance of, my point.
I mean it as lay terminology, analogous to a legal proceeding. Scientists focus on the evidence, not rhetoric. ID proponents and creationists do not engage with the evidence, pretending that hearsay is just as good; hence their emphasis on argument over evidence as seen here.
I find the common claim that both sides are merely interpreting the same evidence differently to be profoundly dishonest, as it is almost always made by those who don’t bother to become engaged with evidence and therefore have no basis for making such a claim.