“I’ll take a wild guess that your definition of proof is rather different from mine.”
I’ll take a guess that you are pendant. I can’t “prove” it, but you sure come across as one.
The word “proof” has several valid meanings. At one extreme is mathematical proof. In a court of law, on the other hand, we talk about proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is obviously not mathematical proof.
In science, nothing can be proved mathematically, but we sometimes use the word proof in the less formal sense. For example, we might say the fact that the earth is not flat is “proved.”
If that is “rather different than your definition,” then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
Rather, the hypothesis that the Earth is flat is disproved. Science can disprove things easily enough--find evidence that renders a hypothesis incorrect. E.g.:
Theory: Literalist Biblical Creation
Hypothesis: If the Solar System is 6000 +/- 1000 years old, then Literalist Biblical Creation is supported.
Method: Radiologically date meteorites.
Observation: Meteorites are > 7000 years old.
Result: The hypothesis is disproved and the theory must be revised or discarded.
Coyoteman, did I do that right? It looks like I just rendered obsolete the entire field of Creationism, and that's not something I'd do lightly. And I haven't done any research design since the halcyon school days.
(On topic, I don't think it was evolution what done in Huckabee. He never really had a chance.)