"Can you suggest to me why Flaubert should be considered a better writer than Dickens?"
"Well, perhaps his novels weigh more?"
"Could it be that they are more positively charged?"
"What are you talking about?"
"Well, we need evidence to argue this point! Things that can be measured and quantified!"
"No, you are confused: that's what science treats as evidence. What we need here is literary evidence: characterization, plotting, imagery, symbolism."
"My dear, I'd like some evidence that you still love me."
"All right, attach these electrodes to my head, and take this blood sample for analysis."
"Well, we need hard, scientific evidence, don't we?"
"For science, yes. But you are confused... in a relationship, I need evidence like you buying me some flowers, or taking me out to the movies, or kissing me goodbye in the morning."
Bob Murphy's offers an entirely reasonable bit of religious evidence: a personal testimony.
His critics dismiss this, and demand scientific evidence. They are confused.
Perhaps the proper response is to demand religious evidence from them for science. "Did physics bring you enlightenment? Bring you into a personal relationship with Jesus? No?! Then it must be nonsense!"