even though the Bible itself clearly states that Faith is the belief in the absence of evidence.

Actually, what it says is faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Depending on the translation, it may use "assurance" and "conviction" in lieu of "substance" and "evidence," or similar words. The verse has nothing to do with politics, social justice, economics, or anything of the sort. It's recognized by theologians as a statement of spiritual reality similar to "the proof is in the pudding." You want to know what parmesan tart tastes like, the best way to know (and I mean "to truly know") is to taste it. All the flowery words in the lexicon can't get close enough to do it justice so just try a bite. That's what faith is. It's a "try a bite" spiritual reality.

The problem with faith is when people try to misapply it to areas where faith isn't proper evidence. Scientists make observations then form hypotheses and test them. Depending on the outcome of their tests, they may form theories. No scientist in the world, not even Christian scientists, and no Muslim scientist, no Jewish scientist, nor any other religious scientist would even make a scientific claim on the basis of faith. And all of us know why.

People of all stripes don't understand what these terms mean. That's why you hear religionists dismiss sound ideas as mere "theories," except that theories are widely accepted ideas among a huge cross-section of scientists who have tested them, made observations, recorded data, and have solid reasons for forming their conclusions. What you often find in the area of politics is people making claims that can't be substantiated by evidence--because there is none--nor faith--because there's no "substance" to their beliefs. They simply make assertions based on what they want to be true, and they believe that if they believe it to be true strong or long enough, then it will be true. Unfortunately, many of them call this "faith," which, of course, it isn't.

By the way, there are different kinds of evidence. The legal system looks at different types of evidence (circumstantial, physical, etc.) when solving crimes. The civil law arena has a really murky view of evidence, but jurisprudence has its own culture. Historians look at archaeological and other types of evidence when drawing conclusions about their line of work. In politics, there's no real clear way to determine what is evidence, so people just make shit up and call it evidence. As you noted, they do it on the left and they do it on the right. And the funny thing is, they each rightly dismiss each other's cockamamie ideas while simultaneously holding their own up as some kind of badge of incredible honor. And we have a Constitution that protects everyone's right to do this. Huah, power to the Magna Carta!