How about nobody saw it happen, science is about testable and repeatable processes, evolution is a description of something observed and testable, but evolution cannot provide evidence of history.
Evolution (the science) describes a mechanism by which humans and apes could come into being from a common ancester, just as the theory of gravity describes how my pencil could have ended up on the floor.
But gravity cannot prove that my pencil rolled of the table. In fact, I PUT my pencil there just now for this post.
I'm not saying that gravity is not science, just that gravity is not the reason my pencil is on the floor.
This article is suggesting NOT the evolution is not science, but that the science of evolution does not prove that humans were not created.
We should teach science in science classes, and history in history.
"How about nobody saw it happen, science is about testable and repeatable processes, evolution is a description of something observed and testable, but evolution cannot provide evidence of history."
In a sense what you are stating is correct. But from a realistic perspective, prooving evolution in a laboratory is probably impossibel, although we have come near close to it with recent work on bacteria. But the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence is so compelling that if evolution was ever presented in a courtroom, it probability would be unquestionable. Since we can't really prove evolution, bnut since the evidence available is so overwhelming, we run with it as there is nothing that can be presented as an alternative to explain what we are observing.
In fact, studies on astronomy and cosmology are very frequently done in a very similar manner.