pop morality

[robvalue]

I never understand the point of this kind of tu quoque.

Are they saying that it's a good thing we believe in [some scientific thing] based on [no evidence, according to them]? People should just believe whatever they want, without evidence? That's a sensible, respectable way to behave?

They're either saying this, or they are saying our methods are just as stupid as theirs. Which is it? Or is there some profound third option I am missing?

This is pretending, of course, that their claims about there being no evidence are justified for the sake of argument. I doubt they've thought it through this far. It's just deflecting.