[Phaedrus]

Ah Vade, poker? Just striving mightily to learn a little something. What I've learned is that if one assumes Evolution, then one can "prove" it. But without that essential assumption, things fall apart, the centre cannot hold. That's why it ain't science.

Next question, please.

[js1138]

What I've learned is that if one assumes Evolution, then one can "prove" it.

There is a fundamental difference in temperament here. Science does speculate and search for facts to support the speculation. Along the way, facts are sometimes foung that are inconsistent with the speculation.

Religion, on the other hand, makes assertions and claims that anyone who doubts those assertions will be punished for eternity. The worst science can do to non-believers is reject their articles for publication.

[beavus]

if one assumes Evolution, then one can "prove" it

True. It is called petitio principii (begging the question). However there is no proof of evolution. There are only explanations posited to explain what is observed.

"Proof" is a strange word to use outside the field of mathematics or jurisprudence. There is no proof of the laws of thermodynamics either. There is however an immense amount of evidence that is consistent with these laws and a verifiable failure has yet to be observed.