Evidently Not Evidence

What Atheists Get Wrong About Proof

On a friend’s recent post refuting claims by Carl Sagan that evolution is undeniable fact, I pointed out that everything argued by Sagan in the cited quote was pure speculation disguised as evidence. Sagan betrayed the belief system known as “scientism,” mistaking the interpretations of scientists as factual evidence.

Here’s the quote, in which I have circled all his unproven assumptions:

In a single statement, Sagan makes five unjustified claims, expecting you to just take them for granted. Let’s look at them all in turn, refute them, and expose a significant flaw in the atheist worldview.

“Evolution is fact; it really happened”:

The process of creatures changing their biological features within their respective kinds in order to survive is undeniably observed everywhere. However, the theory that all life emerged from a single cell exiting the primordial goo millions and millions of years ago is pure speculation and always has been.

“The fossil record and molecular biology confirm it”:

Neither the fossil record nor molecular biology have ever shown any transitory creatures, as in one animal becoming a completely different animal (also known as old species to new species transition).

Also, when fossils are found, they are often in shambles, and when found whole, they only provide the bone structure of a creature without any muscles, ligaments, or skin, meaning what the creature looked like has to be imagined (speculation).

And molecular biology suffers the additional handicap of information loss. No adaptations (“evolutionary changes”) produce new information ever. They always either activate already existing inactive genes or erode away existing information when altering the structure and functions of an organism.

“People in America are ignorant of science and hostile to it and the scientific method”:

Science is just data. The scientific method is a process for testing and observing to gather data, which then has to be assessed via philosophical methods of interpretation.

Science doesn’t say anything; scientists do. And scientists are humans, making them imperfect and fallible. They are not to be trusted without question ever, and no consensus among scientists is beyond questioning and abandoning, if another theory or narrative better explains the data/evidence.

Yet, pure acceptance is what has occurred with evolutionary theory for years, even when contrary evidence or better alternative explanations have been determined or provided. That’s religious, not reasonable.

---

The best community of entrepreneurs on social media. Learn how to brand, persuade, and profit from the biggest accounts online. Build and grow your own business today!

---

“Science is not just a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking”:

Ways of thinking are philosophies, not science. The term “science” is technically just Latin for “knowledge,” which was used to render the Greek word “philosophia” (love of wisdom) into the Latin language.

This serves to show that “science,” in the traditional sense, involved all bodies of study and was never limited to empirical observation.

Hence, Sagan’s claim that modern science (as in the scientific method and evolutionary theory alone) is a way of thinking is both self-defeating and closed-minded, since he is abandoning all other modes of thought or potential explanations of reality as fiction. And renders the very field of philosophy, needed to think about data, moot.

“It’s a way of skeptically examining the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility”:

Except the fallibility of “educated scientists.” Those humans and their interpretations are to be accepted and never tested. Or at least not tested with any explanations outside the theory of evolution, which was also devised by said scientists.

Sagan doesn’t say that outright, but it is the implication of his final claim within the context of his prior assertions. Modern scientists are right; everyone else is wrong; and you just have to fall in line and stop resisting.

Besides being authoritarian and dangerous, his last claim is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and also violates itself, making it circular reasoning. “A fine understanding of human fallibility” entails distrusting all humans in all matters at every level, including scientists and their interpretations. That is pure skepticism.

Yet, few atheists would ever question evolution or provide actual evidence. They merely trust peer-reviewed articles with data interpreted by scientists who already have a preconceived bias and/or adoration for the theory of evolution, refusing to interpret anything without that worldview.

That’s not science; it’s the religion of scientism, dependent on just as much faith as, if not more than, every other religion in the world.

Karma’s a Random Atheist

After explaining all the above in a more concise manner, an atheist replied to me with an instant confirmation of their underlying biases. He argued that all the evidence still points to evolution. And when I refused to entertain his statement until he provided examples, aka verifiable evidence, this is what he said:

Can you spot the error?

Just like Sagan, this atheist mistakes the interpretations of scientists in their peer-reviewed papers as evidence. Another appeal to authority, that pesky logical fallacy.

Again, each human reads and interprets differently. Data is just data until reviewed and assessed to determine what narrative best explains it. The best explanation will both fully account for the data and be logically correct, no matter who says it.

Appealing to authority just accepts what someone else says without testing their claims based on merit. Like DEI in the workplace, evolution as an explanation is hired because it’s popular and appealing, not because it’s right.

And anyone who disagrees is labeled a heretic.

The above atheist gave me said label by implication when he said I’m “a bit immune to actual evidence.” Not only is that an indefensible statement presuming to know an unobserved internal state of mind (thereby being un-empirical and unfalsifiable), it’s also the logical fallacy known as ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the argument.

Rather than entertain me to continue the conversation and risk facing down the merits of his own statement (or lack thereof), the atheist chose to dodge entirely with mockery and slander, which is quite common with modern atheists.

Conclusion: Modern Un-Science

The cited quote by Sagan and the response received to pushback shows atheists are not interested in evidence. They pretend to be, but when pressed to provide any for their own position, they will not because they cannot. Atheists only hold to atheism because it allows them to live arrogantly and care-free, worshiping themselves while calling it “science.”

They are far from reasonable. Atheists are the most closed-minded people on the planet, refusing to entertain any explanations for data they don’t like, even when an offered explanation is much better at accounting for and interpreting data/evidence than theories they deem appealing.

Don’t be fooled into buying into the atheist position because it’s popular. Popularity is an invalid test of validity. Feeling apart from logic and reason does not make right. All humans are fallible, even scientists, and no word should be taken at face value without rigorous testing.

If the theory of evolution is true as an explanation of origins, then it has to live up to the same standards as every other explanation offered for reality. And no interpretation or collection of interpretations from scientists will change that.

Know the difference between data and opinion

Weigh all available options

Follow the best explanation

Think properly, and you will never be deceived.