Pish posh pish posh. The scientific method has no means to deal with history, what it cannot immediately observe and repeat. Science cannot assure us George Washington is who is buried in his tomb. Science cannot assure us Napoleon was a world leader, it cannot prove the earth was not created 6,000 years ago.
The scientific method may allow for observation and documentation of phenomena, but it has no means of dealing with what has already passed. You can test the bones of an old skeleton in George Washington's tomb, you might even be able to extract the DNA, but you have no means whatsoever to conclusively state it is George Washington's DNA.
Looking at carbon dating, sure the analysis might show that item "X" is 30 million years old, but you have no way of knowing that item "X" was in fact made 6,000 years old with the appearance of being 30 million years old. Sound crazy? Get out a sheet of paper and draw a person. Were you obligated to draw an infant? Could you not have just as easily have drawn a child, an athlete, or an old man with a cane?
The scientific model works with what you can see and touch in the here and now. When it comes to evolution, science can look at stuff here and now, and put forth theories, but those theories have no more validity than what you choose to give it. In reality, science can do nothing to prove what is happened in the past, it can simply offer up convincing explanations for what may have happened.
Going back to the George Washington example, you have to rely on the legal/historical mode, one of a preponderance of witnessess. How many people saw George Washington get buried there? We have multiple unrelated recordings of this event? Is there any reason to disbelieve their testimony? Any reason for them to lie about it? Any reason to expect somebody swapped out the bones in the tomb? No? The we accept it as fact that the bones in George Washington's tomb are his, based not on science, but on a preponderance of historical records pointing to it.
And so you look at old skeletons and fossils and declare "Science shows us this is true." But that isn't science at all, it's history. You cannot duplicate your theory in a lab. You cannot put forth a hypothesis, test it with a control subject and an experiment subject, and document your findings. And even if you could do such a test, you would still have us accept an extrapolation of today's test results to events that allegedly occured millions or billions of years ago. It's the legal/historical method packaged up and sold to the world as "Science". You take an assemblage of various findings, and present a preponderance of testimonies, building the case for accepting your assertion as fact. That's what goes on in courts every day. But, it isn't science, and it does not establish fact. It simply tries to convince based on a preponderance of evidence, and thus never can rise above the level being a theory, a possible explanation of origins.
Could I be the first to give you a hug? :-)