Since many people have been asking me about my position on how I view the concept of burden of proof I decided to make a video about it. I am explaining the how merely saying “Evolution is a fact” is not a claim that requires one to demonstrate evolution is true, but is at most a claim requiring merely the citation of sources substantiating this to be the case. Example: If I am reading a scientific text book that states “evolution is a fact” then it is not a claim, it is just a statement of fact that is not required to substantiate that statement as it is already confirmed established fact that evolution exists.
I try to give specific examples as to what someone means by a challenge to the statement “evolution is a fact” and what exactly someones burden of proof is when someone does challenge that statement and tries to make it into a claim.
Please comment and let me know if you agree or disagree and why.