This paper challenges the common view that scientific theory confirmation must be contrastive (requiring examination of rival theories). Drawing on scientific practice, it argues that theories can be confirmed by evidence alone when that evidence is exceptionally strong. The argument is supported by three case studies: (1) Perrin's work on atomism, where he largely ignored rival theories; (2) mod-ern biology textbooks' presentation of evolution, which emphasizes evidence quality rather than rival theories; and (3) scientists' current treatment of well-established theories like atomism as uncontested facts. The paper examines four possible explanations for (3) – scientists' implicit justification of these theories – arguing that it stems from their immersion in overwhelming evidence with strong con-firmatory features, rather than from considering rival theories or historical chains of testimony.