Seems to me that our trips to the Moon, and probes to other planets prove the theory quite well. If it was false we could not have made it. Let's remember that very accurate measurements had to be made to accomplish these tasks. In addition, present day instruments I think can certainly verify it (and have verified it) in various ways.
We also used Newtonian dynamics to get to the Moon, notwithstanding that Newtonian dynamics was known at the time to be wrong! (I assume the computers then weren't powerful enough to do the relativistic calculations, and it wasn't necessary from a practical standpoint anyway.)
As Alamo-Girl will tell you, having read Popper, no number of confirmations or verifications of a theory will "prove" the theory -- that is establish it to be necessarily true. It is always possible that there is some other theory (possibly one that no one has thought up yet) which will will pass all those same verifications, as well as additional tests that the existing theory will fail to pass. What's more, that new, more successful theory has exactly the same status. It too stands to be falsified, or surpassed by some better theory.
Even if we did manage to formulate some theory that was completely true, there is no way we could know that.
We can "prove" things in mathematics and geometry (establish them to be necessarily true) precisely because we (humans) establish or define all the formalisms of the system, or because we know all the rules of the system, or because they follow the laws of logic, or the very same rules of inference that are used in formulating the proof.
We can only "prove" scientific theories if we know in advance all the formalisms of nature, but of course we do not know this. It is precisely to discover and investigate the formalisms or rules of nature that we create theories.
Just be glad (as I'm sure you are) that we're not living in a Muslim society.
Read the first paragraph or so of Dobzhansky's classsic essay (actually, it would do you good to read and understand all of it) Nothing makes sense in Biology except in the Light of Evolution.
The heliocentric *theory* is supported by observation, but according to Martin Luther it's not in agreement with Scripture:
People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon . . . This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy, but sacred Scripture tells us (Joshua l0:l3) that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth..
Seems to me that our trips to the Moon, and probes to other planets prove the theory quite well
Isn't this exactly the same way in which dna analysis 'proves' the truth of evolution? The theory makes predictions, eg. 'any dna that is common to people and orangutangs will also be found in chimps and gorillas', and these predictions are found to be true.
How is that different from any other sort of science?