The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.
Agreed. But when it comes to interpreting evidence - some methods are better than others, yes?
So which is better?
On the one hand, we can look at the evidence, compare it to what we already believed about the world and try and interpret the evidence to somehow fit that whilst ignoring inconvenient evidence that might generally lead to a different conclusion.
Or we can try and develop an interpretation that is consistent with all of the evidence, and requires the fewest extraneous entities. We can't perfectly avoid the human tendency towards confirmation bias as above - but we can try and work out ways to limit it to the bare minimum.
You can understand why those that prefer the latter methodology might take issue with those that choose the former.
For example:
quote:
"He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."
Now some see that, and combine it with the idea that when freshwater and saltwater meet in nature (rivers and seas for example) there is a barrier of sorts: they do not mix as one might expect. This, they argue, is evidence that God was behind the words since how would a person know that before modern science confirmed it?
This requires ignoring that the barrier is not unbreakable as suggested in the text (otherwise river water would back up and never become seawater), and ignoring the ancient middle eastern creation myths which begin with two watery entities (one salty and the other sweet) and a barrier, or firmament, made by the creator god to hold back the waters and before going to work on the world.
When you start putting it in full context, it is evidence that this kind of belief was still around in the Middle East in the 6th/7th Century, and had been coopted into a new religion.