"No , he is right . You 're thinking about evidence after it 's been interpreted rather than the raw data available to all - which is not to say that it is equally scrutinised by all . The difference is that the interpretation of those facts that supports common descent is based on axioms that have many times proved their worth as accurate and predictive . That 's the part Ken does n't seem to appreciate : although axioms are indeed stated rather than derived or proved , where they lead you , the expectations they engender , can be compared with reality in order to see whether your axioms are congruent with those upon which reality operates ."
"I think Ham is simply being disingenuous - he advances the idea that we all have the same evidence so that he can then go on to argue that indeed it 's a matter of interpretation and that it 's unfair to deny the bible as an interpretative tool , because he knows perfectly well that any fair-minded person will stop and consider the argument . But in practice , he and the people whose opinions he defends do not actually think like this . We do not have all the same evidence , because something that you and I and all other reasonable people will agree is evidence even though interpretations may diverge will be rejected as evidence ab initio . And that is my point - albeit probably expressed unclearly in my earlier post ."
"That 's the part Ken does n't seem to appreciate"
"But in practice , he and the people whose opinions he defends do not actually think like this"