Evidence: Religious Apologists And Science-Based Thinkers Diverge

To religious apologists, evidence is broadly construed and includes personal experience and testimony.  To science-based thinkers, evidence is precise and firm, consisting of objective  observations and experimental results.  In the law, as well as in philosophy and science, the burden of proof is recognized as being on the party asserting the claim.  Religion gets a pass regarding the burden of proof.

My question to apologists is this:  why are you exempt from presenting the type of evidence required by science, especially since you are making extraordinary claims?  You live in the same reality as everyone else.  You accept the results of objective observations and experiments in virtually every aspect of your life EXCEPT religion.

I agree with this Christian:

Despite the best efforts of apologists like William Lane Craig, the 'evidence' for Christianity's truth is, in truth, not the kind that science will or should ever admit. We believers mean something different by the word: something that puts faith permanently in the category of irreproducible results. Francis Spufford
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/francisspu657290.html

 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/francisspu657290.html

Here is an example link that shows how apologists play by different rules of evidence.

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/why-historical-apologetics-is-useless.html