No....it would be SCIENTIFICALLY true, until someone proves them wrong or shows that there's no evidence to support the theory as presented.
How exactly would you prove that the world wasn't created yesterday?
We scientists don't logically need to prove negatives. You would have to show that the world WAS created yesterday and I, as a scientist, only need to show/prove that you have no evidence that the world was created yesterday.
Welcome to the science world.
What is the difference between a claim being "scientifically true" and simply true? Or does "scientifically true" just mean "made it through the peer-review process"?
You seem to think that when one interprets evidence, one never needs to determine what is not the case. When you look at the evidence [for evolution], you are determining that *having been created yesterday* is not the best explanation for that evidence. Otherwise, your interlocutor could simply do the same thing to you, i.e. shift the burden of proof such that you have to prove that "the world was created yesterday" is not true. This is why shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy, because both sides can do it, and it therefore does not advance the discussion or show which claim is true.
-A8