But both sides don’t agree on the evidence in this case. One side is ignoring evidence and substituting rhetoric from those who actively misrepresent evidence. That’s the problem.
When did I say or imply that they were? In fact, I explicitly wrote in response to you:
And you even responded to that comment. Why pretend that I wrote something completely different now?
I’m sorry you’re confused, but I stand by it. That’s how strong the evidence is.
Yes, if you are arguing, you obviously need arguments. That’s just circular (emphasis mine).
The only shared framework there is a scientific one.
That’s because they are presupposing a pseudoscientific framework in which rhetoric is more important than evidence.
I don’t see how you can do that if you don’t actively refute frankly dishonest equivocations between rhetoric and evidence.
Do you not see that Joshua is refuting your claim wrt to Behe’s latest book, in the case of the polar bear? Behe is falsely presenting an interpretation as a fact and Josh is concentrating on that. That’s what has to be done; it just needs to be more clearly framed IMO.