Legal vs. Scientific Arguments
I've noticed that most of the arguments coming from theists,particularly fundamentalists are more about the rationality of the argument itself rather than evidence vs. faith. I've grown very bored with this, but it's easy to understand why so many choose this path. Many theists, particulary Bible Belt fundamentalists come from legalistic backgrounds. Many pastors I know were former lawyers and judges and many seminaries offer some classes in law. That's one reason why the "good Reverend Phelps" from Westboro Baptist Church (godhatesfags.com) and his ilk aren't in prison for some of their shenanigans, many of them are lawyers and know how to wiggle out of charges.
The biggest difference between arguing science in a lab and arguing law in a courtroom is the purpose and methodologies. A lawyer just has to convict or exonerate based on the rules of constitutional law and presented evidence. This is not the same as say, defending evolution vs. creationsim and ID or the supernatural aspects of Christianity( such as the resurrection). For one thing, eyewitness accounts count for a lot in a courtroom, but they don't count for much in a scientific argument. If 4 people saw someone commit a crime and all the testimony agrees, the chances are good that the defendant is guilty. However if 10,20 or 1000 people saw a UFO, a ghost or Bigfoot, and they all agree that's what they saw, the claim is still suspect because there's no proof that what they thought they was in reality what they saw.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."