Innately, there is a different standard (and science, by definition, can't even address, or disprove, supernatural claims as it doesn't deal in the supernatural).
Scientifically, the threshold for evolution has to be empirical proof...that is what is required by science (btw, notice that you said belief in evolution, which is an accurate freudian slip, but one which does not comport with the oft evo posted definitions list...see it posted in an above previous post).
Several elements of the current theory go beyond observation, and beyond evidence, and into assumed conclusions, which later get stated as fact.
For instance...HOX gene mutations causing lobe-finned fishes to evolve arms and legs with digits. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis/conjecture. Yet...it is oft repeated as fact. In contrast, HOX gene mutations have only been observed to cause monstrosities...not beneficial adaptations...and, specifically, not the one mentioned above in lobe-finned fishes.
This kind of assumed conclusion, stated as fact, creates a "fuzziness" between the actual science of the evolutionary theory and the philosophy, and belief system, of evolution.
Evos often switch back and forth between science and philosophy/belief, making the two equal (and "fuzzy") when they are not...and then claim science when their philosophical, or faith-based assumptions are challenged.
This "fuzziness" often leads to a missionary zeal to "prove" evolution, which leads to feathred dinosaurs that don't exist, and so forth.
Ask National Geographic...They understand the embarrassment that comes with the missionary zeal associated with the philosophy of evolution (over the science of evolution).
Without making any assumed conclusions, scientifically explain how a simple single cell, just formed out of a primordial soup (moment right after abiogenesis), evolves into all of the diverse and complex life observeable today.
BTW, there are several empirical proofs for the Bible (manuscripts, archaeology and fulfilled prophecy). And if the Bible is what it says it is, then we have an eyewitness account of abiogenesis and the origin of species...How much more empirical proof do you want above and beyond an eyewitness account?
Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.
You are, IMO, confirming that the 2 different approaches cannot (and I would suggest, should not) be compared. Religion and science are different species.
And if the Bible is what it says it is, then we have an eyewitness account of abiogenesis and the origin of species...How much more empirical proof do you want above and beyond an eyewitness account?
Sorry, you start with an 'if' and then move to a conclusion as if the statement is true. Kind of like what you said was wrong with evolution: "Several elements of the current theory go beyond observation, and beyond evidence, and into assumed conclusions, which later get stated as fact.
Who was the eyewitness to abiogenesis? You can't say Adam, unless he witnessed himself created, and that's a bit of a leap. In Genesis 2, Adam was asleep when Eve was created so it would be tough to call him an eyewitness to her creation as well. The garden seems to have existed first (as indicated in Genesis 1).
Proof of a global flood? I have yet to see any, and my own research contradicts it.