I have sensed that we have been talking past each other and referring to different kinds or levels of proof.
There is proof from experimental science, based upon physical evidence. This is what I have been referring to when I speak of scientific proof.
There is "proof" based upon logical reasoning and historical evidence. This type of "proof" relies upon its logical and explanatory power. Its ability to explain things as we see them in the light of historical evidence. It is not "certain" in the sense of scientific proof, but is employed where/because experimental science cannot or has not resolved the theory in question. Logical reason can lead to apprehension of truth. But a theory supported by logic and reason is open to criticism by others -- e.g. if there are logical inconsistencies, if there are alternate explanations of the evidence, etc.
Parts of the theory of evolution are supported by experimental science. The support for much of the theory, however, is in the form of reasoning, using historical evidence, etc.
That is why I have stated that the entire theory of evolution is not scientifically proven.
Now, there are some key aspects of the theory of evolution that seem to be assertions rather then scientifically-formulated hypotheses. Life is assumed to have originated from material means and material means only, employing chemical evolution, energy, etc. This assertion/assumption/hypothesis has not been proven. It has to be that way in the matierialist worldview, and alternate explanations are not considered. Even though the same type of proof which supports much of the theory of evolution, arising from rational thought, is available for alternate explanations.
Materialism is in a box of its own definition. It purports not to condider anything non-material, as that would be a contradiction of the premise of materialism.
So a materialist "has" to logically accept the theory of evolution and assume that proof will be forth-coming. So IF the theory of evolution is not in fact true (the origin of life, evolution between species for which there is no physical or historical evidence, etc.), the materialist will not be able to apprehend the truth. He will be stuck, by his own premesis, accepting something not true. This applies even if all of the theory of evolution is true but there exists some non-material aspect to life, consciousness, etc.
Although the materialist has to accept (believe) the theory of evolution, even if evolution were entirely proven, materialism itself would not be proven. Since God is outside the Universe of time and space, for example, even an incontrovertible theory of evolution would not do away with Him . . . And as noted, there are other ways of apprehending God . . .
There are metaphysical beliefs embedded in materialism/evolutionism. E.g. that only the material exists. Since this is not subject to scientific proof, the path to truth will be through reason.