The problem with evolution is that it can not be proven because an experiment can not be performed over a million years and then the experiment would have to be repeatable. It seems that people of religion are more open minded than evolutionists.
It would perhaps be better to study some science before you criticize it. You have two serious methodological errors.
First, science cannot "prove" anything. That has been discussed many times on these threads. Science can, and does, pile up huge amounts of evidence in support of some of its theories. The theory of evolution is one example.
Second, it is primarily an anti-evolutionist contention, and wrong, that a science has to replicate all experiments. Physics and chemistry require it in many cases--this is where the cold fusion claim of a few years back has been found wanting. But nobody can replicate plate tectonics, ice ages, meteor strikes, or many other well-supported aspects of science. It is disingenuous to imply that this is a necessary condition in science, and that the theory of evolution is the weaker because of it.
"The problem with evolution is that it can not be proven because an experiment can not be performed over a million years and then the experiment would have to be repeatable."
1) Lab experiments are not a requirement for science. Repeating the phenomena is not a requirement in an historical science. If it were, forensics would be impossible.
2) Science as a method is not capable of providing proof.
" It seems that people of religion are more open minded than evolutionists."
Most evolutionists are also people of religion.