Strawman? Hardly. You consistently wail about "interpretation of evidence", lobbing at me a condescendingly insincere offer to "teach" me about the difference between "evidence" and its interpretation. Of course they are different! The question is, what is a
reasonable interpretation? Evidence is useless without an interpretation, and interpretation is useless without qualification. A 5-year old could observe the evidence of a crime scene and postulate an interpretation. But of what value is that? The standard for conviction in a court of law is not "proof beyond ANY doubt", but "proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt". Why do you suppose that is? Because if the former were the standard, anyone with a decent imagination could perform the function of a defense attorney and manufacture any (plausible or otherwise) story that re-interprets the evidence to exonerate their client, rendering our criminal justice system impotent. The same holds true for science. If science is to continue to be as useful as it has been, the "reasonable" test must continue to be applied.
You see ridicule, I see satire of the ridiculous.