Steve the article is great, but I have a little bit of conflict in my mind. If we, as reformed, are presuppositionalists, then what role does evidence have?
The point is that evidence is value-laden. In assessing evidence, we take other things for granted regarding the kind of world we live in. What's possible, impossible, or necessary. A physical world. Sense knowledge. Logic. Induction. There's a theistic framework for evidence that lies in the background. When debating someone who subscribes to methodological atheism (to take one example), that becomes a presuppositional debate, not simply about evidence, but about the rules of evidence. What counts as evidence. What lies in the background sometimes comes to the foreground when the debate turns to criteria.