One trouble with scientific evidence is that interpretation is involved in deciding just what is being evidenced.
If only some part of the methodology was focussed on inventing and carrying out 'tests' that can discriminate between two different conclusions.
The trouble with Dawkins recent books is that they've already decided the evidence points to old hag.
That's because the evidence does point to an old hag. Because tests have ruled out all but the most unfalsifiable of alternatives.