[Dimensio]

So we have to believe them, but not hold them to a standard of *proof*.

That sounds like a creationist's argument.

Science supports claims with evidence, however even with extensive compelling evidence validating a theory, scientific claims are always subject to change should contradictory evidence suddenly arise. Creationism relies on no evidence at all, and many of its proponents insist that no amount of real-world observations will make them change their views.

[MamaTexan]

Science supports claims with evidence

Then where is the evidence that the beginning of life on Earth was an accident?

-------

however even with extensive compelling evidence validating a theory, scientific claims are always subject to change should contradictory evidence suddenly arise.

How much evidence is required by the scientific community before it's considered 'compelling' or 'contradictory'?

IMHO, however true Darwin's theory is that the natural world evolves over time, I'm just not willing to forgo my innate beliefs and awe for the complexity of life on the say so of an amateur naturalist on a cruise.

-------

Creationism relies on no evidence at all, and many of its proponents insist that no amount of real-world observations will make them change their views.

Yep... It's called faith.