The difference between science and philosophy is that science gives proof of its assertions. Your statement that any hypothesis is science regardless of proof is utterly ridiculous. Just because evolution cannot give any proof of its assertions either in the fossil record or in any other way, does not mean that real science does not. Science proves its theories with repeatable experiments, calculations, predictions and practical applications. Evolution can do none of those, therefore it is not science.
Alright then, please give me three examples of scientific theories that have been demonstrably proven. Should be easy, if scientific theories really are proven, as you insist. Why do you stall?
I never said such a thing. A hypothesis is testable, and either the experiment supports the hypothesis, in which case we want to test it again, or it disproves the hypothesis, in which case it is time to think of a new hypothesis.
Just because evolution cannot give any proof of its assertions either in the fossil record or in any other way, does not mean that real science does not. Science proves its theories with repeatable experiments, calculations, predictions and practical applications.
Evolution is a theory, meaning that it can be used to make testable hypotheses. So far, these hypotheses have stood up to repeated experimentation. The experimentation is not merely based on what one finds in the fossil record, and making testable predictions as to what may be found there, but is, these days, based on our knowledge of genetics. I happen to be a biochemist; the theory of evolution for me is a tool.