Stop That Crow!

In many debates, especially those which have been popularized, one frequently hears the assertion, “There is no evidence for that.” In this post I will consider this response and how it lends itself to abuse, especially in the public sphere. In order to illustrate this abuse, I will provide a number of examples from current debates as to how this line is (mis)appropriated. I will then proceed to discuss the proper use of this line in relation to the burdens of proof and rejoinder.

The delightful thing about “There is no evidence for that” is that it can be used anywhere and at any time. The reason for this immense flexibility is that it takes absolutely no acquaintance with the facts of the matter, whatever that matter may be, and furthermore requires no evidence in support of it. After all, how could there possibly be affirmative evidence for the assertion that there is no evidence for something?

The first example of how this line is employed comes from the debate surrounding evolution and creationism, if debate is even the correct word to describe the tension between the two camps. Creationists are actively taught to assert that there is no evidence for evolution or that evolution can’t be tested. These claims only seem plausible to the individual who is not at all acquainted with the facts, but that is exactly why this line works so well in this context; almost nobody is really acquainted with the facts. The use of these lines is extraordinarily safe since no evidence for these assertions could even ask to be brought forth.

However, the debate is not so one sided, for evolutionists also assert that there is no evidence for Intelligent Design (ID). This assertion doesn’t seem to require anymore evidential support than the creationists’ line does, but there are a couple of differences, only one of which I wish to highlight at this point. Whereas the creationists’ line only seems true to those unacquainted with the facts, the evolutionists’ line seems true to those who are acquainted with the facts. This difference should not be underestimated.

Another debate in which “There is no evidence for that” is commonly used is that of global warming. “Liberals” (note the scare quotes) assert that the earth is getting warmer and the “others” reply that there is no evidence for it. Liberals then proceed to provide some evidence and the “others” reply that there is no evidence that humans are contributing to such warming. And so on. The line seems to be being used here as a series of punctuated attempts at resisting an otherwise full-blown retreat.

Yet another area in which this line is used is in the debate surrounding religion(s) in general and the existence of God in particular. “There is no evidence that there is a God” is a claim for which no evidential support need be provided. This is especially alarming given that, to most people, there does indeed seem to be plenty of evidence for God in the world.

Before continuing, let me clearly state which uses I do and do not approve of. The creationists’ use of the line against the evolutionists is clearly wrong. The use of the line in the global warming debate seems wrong as well, though to a significantly lesser degree. I see the atheists’ use of the line against theists as being basically right while the use of the line by evolutionists against ID is clearly right. Let me now proceed to discuss why.

In order for a debate to be a meaningful one there are certain responsibilities which the involved parties implicitly take upon themselves. The first of these responsibilities is the burden of proving an assertion which should not be confused with the burden of proof in general. The burden of proof is the opposite of presumption, the latter being the default position and the former being the responsibility of the challenger more or less. The burden of proving an assertion, on the contrary, is the responsibility which all parties have of, at least potentially, backing up any assertion that is made on their part, whether their position carries the presumption or not. The burden of rejoinder is simply the responsibility to carry the debate forward.

The creationists’ use of “There is no evidence for that” against the evolutionists is clearly a failure to meet the burden of rejoinder. The evolutionists have put forth immense amounts of evidence and ways in which their theory can and has been tested. The creationists’ use of the line is merely a refusal to consider the evidence and this is why it only works on the naïve.

In this context, the use of the line actually does carry with it a burden of proving an assertion; it is the wording of the line itself which disguises this burden. The creationists must prove that the evidence that the evolutionists have provided in favor of their position is flawed in some way; not that the evidence is merely insufficient for their conclusions, because they are claiming that there is NO evidence at all. This is their burden and their use of the line is merely an attempt to dodge this responsibility.

The evolutionists’ use of the line is different. They clearly have the most plausible scenario for the modern diversity and complexity of life and thus have presumption in the debate, though the importance of presumption in all these debates should not be overrated. ID claims that evolution is flawed in some way and as such, they carry both the burden of proving their assertion as well as the burden of proof in general, though, as noted, this latter burden is far more subjective and therefore far less important. The evolutionists have responded by addressing the claims of ID and have demonstrated that their evidence is indeed flawed; thus meeting the burden of rejoinder. They have thus demonstrated that there is, as of yet, no evidence for ID’s affirmative claims; thus meeting their burden of proving their assertion.

As to the debate of global warming, I must confess that I am not very well read up on the debate. Nevertheless, for what I have read it would seem that while the “others” do have presumption, the “liberals” have indeed met the requirement of proving their assertion to a large extent. While the “others” have acknowledged this to a certain extent, they have as of yet (as far as I can tell) not met their responsibility of rejoinder. They have not addressed the liberal’s evidence, but have instead back-pedaled to safer ground where they can merely claim presumption again. This is not good enough; they have the responsibility to not only hedge their bets, but to actively provide evidence for their own assertions. They cannot simply hide behind presumption again and again in the course of their retreat from the liberal’s evidence.

The debate surrounding the existence of God is a bit more sticky for the fact that the presumption certainly seems to lie with the theists, though this seems due to tradition more than anything else. (Like I said, presumption should not be overrated.) Thus the burden of proof lies with the atheists who want to question the existence of God. It would seem in this context that the mere use of “There is no evidence for God” is simply inadequate for their purpose due to presumption lying with their opponents. Such, however, would only be the case if they did not adequately address the burden of proving their assertion, which they have.

The atheists have considered the evidence which is taken as support for God’s existence and have shown that it is indeed flawed. In this they have provided reason for perhaps shifting presumption to their side, since it seems unjust to put the burden of proof in proving the non-existence of anything, even God. Either way, the theists must now meet their burden of rejoinder by responding to the atheists’ arguments. To say that there is no evidence for the non-existence of something seems shallow even to those unfamiliar with the intricate nature of the debate.

Thus we have seen that the line “There is no evidence for that” can be used and misused in many ways. The misuse of the line comes from a desire or attempt to stop the argument rather than forward it. It is a refusal to take responsibility for one’s claims. It is an attempt to hide behind supposed or traditional presumption. The correct use comes only in having considered purported evidence and finding it flawed, not merely insufficient but flawed.