Words have different meanings to different people of different backgrounds. If I were to say I needed to abduct your arm - you might wonder why this nut wants to take away your arm - when all I wanted to do was test the range of motion and move your arm away from your body.
If I say that a fact is a well observed occurrence and that a coherent set of supportive facts can be offered as proof of a hypothesis then I am using different definitions for fact and proof than you are. My set comes from my background and are understood and usable in my environment.
Uh huh. And when you stand up before a school board to defend science, what set of definitions of the word "proof" do you think will make the most sense? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If "proved" doesn't mean unquestionably true, than it means questionable. The theory of evolution is, by your lights "proved", ie. questionable. And the theory of creationism is also "proved" in that sense. So they are even. So both should be taught.
What you have achieved, by the sloppy use of the word "proof" in your circles, is an abdication of the responsibility to explicate the very conditional nature of scientific acceptance, just when it needs to be most carefully understood in educational circles, if they are to avoid being pulled back into the Middle Ages by creationists, flat-earthers, and astrologers.