I would argue a key point of this:"...evidence is always evidence for or against something."Barring the recursive sentence structure, it's not "for or against" something, it's "of" something. "For or against" only happens when a categorical system is imposed on the evidence by way of analysis. A fossil, for example, is evidence of the morphology of an organism recorded in sedimentary rock. It's not evidence for evolution until naturalistic categories are imposed on its analysis. Although Tim hints at this, the rest of the article begs the question that evidence is always "for or against".