Well, your assertion was silly. The only "proofs" you find in science are of the mathematical type. Everything else is best fit observationally contingent modeling. Scientists don't talk of certainties, they put probabilities around everything -- error bars.
Newton's physical law theory is pretty darn useful -- yet it diverges from reality at speeds approaching light. Einstein and others improved upon the theory, made the error bars smaller. Someone else may improve upon Einstein.
Biblical creationism isn't a theory based in observation and it isn't amenable to proof. It is not in the realm of science -- it is an article of faith. Evolution, on the other hand, is based solely on observations -- in the lab, in the feild, in the fossil record. That's science.
I completely agree. I would also like to add, a theory will ALWAYS remain a theory no matter how much evidence is accumulated.
Biblical creationism -- that the world was created in six days in the order as recorded in Genesis -- is not science, as you note. It is faith.
Evolution, on the other hand, is based solely on observations -- in the lab, in the feild, in the fossil record. That's science.
The insistance that those observations are evidence of evolution is a tenant of faith. The observations can be more fairly considered as raising doubts about evolution. For instance, after a plethora of laboratory experiments we have never evolved a new species -- unless one starts playing semantic games with the word "species."
There are no transitory fossils -- although I can't take the fossil record seriously one way or the other.
Note that I limit myself to biological evolution rather than the all-encompassing theory which attempts to explain the accidental existance of our universe and is inarguably a religious belief.
Got to go.