The only fraud here is the above statement. The Scientific Method was introduced by Bacon about 500 years before Popper.
Popper gave us two important principles concerning science: the principle of falsifiability and the principle of verification.
Popper's Principle of Falsifiability states that in order for a proposition to be regarded as part of science, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false. An example of a field that might be affected by this is modern String Theory, since it’s all math and we don’t have or foresee any apparatus that might be used to verify or falsify the results. However, this obviously does not exclude evolution, since there are any number of observations that would falsify it.
Popper's Principle of Verification states that verification of a theory would require a positive result in every possible instance, most of which would remain in the unobserved future, and as such, no theory can be absolutely verified.
To summarize Popper’s two principles, no theory can be absolutely proven, regardless of the number of positive results, but any theory can be disproven by a single negative observation.
People, ignorant of science, of which I think you would probably be included, imagine that scientists believe in the laws of thermodynamics because they have been somehow “proven.” This is not the case, we believe in them because they have been overwhelmingly scrutinized and not a single case has been observed that would falsify them. As Popper pointed out, there is no way to “prove” anything in science.
I have seen many pro-evolutionists take the bait from people like you and try to argue that evolution is science in the same sense that physics is science. This is simply not the case as pointed out by a number of famous biologists, such as Ernst Mayr. Mayr, in “Toward a New Philosophy of Biology” points out that evolutionary biology differs from functional biology in the sense that evolutionary biology tries to answer the “why questions” as opposed to functional biology or physics or chemistry, which try to answer the “how questions.” For example, the functional biologist wants to know “how” our gall bladder works, whereas the evolutionist wants to know “why” we have one in the first place.
Evolution is a bit like what they now call “forensic science.” Is forensic science a true science in the sense that it advances under the guidance of the Scientific Method? No, I don’t think so. It’s just a collection of scientific tools to do more accurate detective work. However, forensic science does produce knowledge. Knowledge which jurors accept as being believable “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Evolution is a bit like forensic science. It is a collection of methods borrowed from other fields to investigate biological history. Has it been proven? Not absolutely, but "beyond a reasonable doubt." This, as Popper has taught us is all that any science can do
By the way, I would suggest studying a little philosophy before you go around quoting philosopher. There are some people that actually read the stuff.
To summarize Popper’s two principles, no theory can be absolutely proven, regardless of the number of positive results, but any theory can be disproven by a single negative observation.
Have you seen any Darwinist or evolutionist provide a single negative observation of the inference of "design" of the bacterial flagellum? Or how about the Cambrian Explosion? How about the "blood clotting cascade"?
Take a look at:
http://spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=8543