Creationism is in no sense proved - it only has a limited interpretation put forth by an equally limited sect of one biblical writing.
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,
What we have achieved is scientific principles and proofs necessary to develop new life-saving drugs, new surgical techniques, and the understandings of disease that once killed millions. Not bad for an abdication of responsibility.
just when it needs to be most carefully understood in educational circles,
It does need to be understood - not just in abstract terminology but concrete examples of the scientific method and the very real results it produces.
Creationism is just as "proved" as evolution, by your lights. It is just a question of how much credence you may choose to put in the "proof". Scientists assign little concrete statistical likelihood to the creationist theory. Creationists reciprocate. Whom should I choose to believe, and why? Continuing to gabble on about "proof", when, in fact, you mean high likelihood, is not a satisfactory answer. Lay people who inhabit school boards need to understand why some ideas are scientifically respectable, and some are not, and continuing to claim that you have "proofs", and refusing to go into the inherently fallable nature of inductive reasoning and then defending the choices science makes on the basis of this fallable reasoning is just flat ceding the argument to the creationists because you are too lazy or arrogant to do some difficult homework.