Yes, science will discard the Theory of Evolution in a minute, if it is falsified.
If you find some human bones intermixed with dinosaurs in a strata (not buried in a funeral humans) let me know.
Good of you to be open-minded. Of course, conveniently, the means to conclusively refute the idea of macro-evolution is no more available than that required to absolutely prove it. You see, the problem is not so much that a creationist view is not rational. It's that it doesn't conform to the pyramid of presuppositions on which so much of evolutionary theory is based.
If the creationist view is true, then saying that it is unscientific is no different than a primitive ascribing an internal combustion engine to the workings of magic or alchemy. You don't understand the mechanism, so you dismiss it in favor of a collection of postulates that are mutually supportive within a specific closed system of your own definition. Rather than being open to expanding your system to embrace another concept, you prefer to define the alternative as invalid, ignoring or rationalizing the internal philosophical and/or scientific contradictions and inconsistencies that exist within your theory.
It would seem that the very simplicity of a model that postulates an intelligent creator doesn't satisfy the need to accomplish the unraveling of the universe through the exercise of intellect. Or perhaps it's simply a question of ego. Possibly you have a strong need to believe that the human mind is the apex of intellect; and, while time and space can be accepted as infinite, the idea of an infinite mind/personality is offensive.
Cheers