Really? I always though that science was about proving things in a way that others could replicate the results.
thought
That is my point. As for evolution there are two kinds of replication. One replicates results that do not prove what happened in the past directly. The other applies only to evolution as an ongoing process.
I am inclined to think evolution happened because it seems to best fit the evidence. I just don't think it can be scientifically proved, and I think banning alternative views in the name of science is nonsense. As you go back into the history of biology, science is less and less applicable. You must rely more and more on assumption and less on empirical evidence.