The complete lack of any evidence proves it for me.
There is a complete lack of evidence that you are intelligent. Does that prove it true, too?
If you knew anything about science, you would know that "evidence" doesn't have anything to do with "proof".
Scientific theories are supported by evidence but cannot be proven because they are necessarily falsifiable.
The bottom line is that you filter evidence through your belief systems (ideologies), as do scientists.
There are thousands of examples of scientists dismissing damaging evidence to support their ideologies, especially to acquire additional public funding for their pet projects.
This is why it is especially critical for the objective reader of science articles (and even random internet posts like yours) to separate the data from the interpretation.
For you to state there is a "complete lack of any evidence" proving something demonstrates that (a) you don't have a clue about science and (b) implies that you have examined ALL evidence (past/present/future), which you haven't, and can't, and therefore, reduces your credibility exponentially.
btw, how's your study of the philosophy of science going?
perhaps you should get started on that asap if your goal of being an objective seeker of truth is indeed sincere (which I doubt it is).