How is that different than anyone else, for example yahoos arguing on the internet? The idea behind "evidence based" is a recognition that public policy has almost always been opinion-driven, and that we should cite evidence in support of our policies before adopting them.
Does that mean the evidence is correct? No. (Though even cherry-picked evidence is better than no evidence!). Does it mean you agree with the policy? Certainly not in all cases.
But the idea is sound. I think what you're upset about is not the "evidence based", it's that there's a partisan lean to the use of the term and that your tribe, whichever it is, is still doing the opinion thing and doesn't like citing studies.
(Disclaimer I'm not a scientist) Apparently in scientific circles, people can shoot down new claims by saying it doesn't have enough evidence, while the "default/fallback position" (held by the "establishment") is backed by even less evidence.
I'm not saying it's a common thing, but if you're looking for "evidence based" red flags, this might also be something to look out for too.
Please provide an example.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...