Originally Posted by White trash wagon
It's easy for religious folks, they don't have to prove ANYTHING. It's all based on emotion (otherwide known as faith). All they need is a several thousand year old text, written by men (not god), and the faith that it's all real.
Science, on the other hand demands repeatable, verifiable proof. Yes there are scientific theories, but they remain theories until the scientific method proves or disproves them. Since even old scientific facts are constantly reviewed & subjected to testing, science always self-corrects, albeit not instantly.
Proof that science works? your reading this aren't you? Without science, you would have slept in the grass, hoped you could get your hands on a plant or animal that didn't kill you first, and eventually die from a broken bone or abcessed tooth before you were 30.
Actually, if you want to get into "verifiable fact" and the "scientific method," my wife is a Ph.D. student about to get a Ph.D. in Cognative Neuroscience and works with kids with tramatic brain injury on a regular basis, testing and locating the parts of their brains that were effected, and also administering therapy. My wife says that Evolutionists basically spit on the scientific method with their untestable theories, because they can never get past step 4:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
See, testable requires replication during the experiment. However, most of the theory of evolution cannot be tested or replicated, not to mention observed in the natural world. We have never seen a species evolve into a completely new species. Evolutionists had to redefine the steps of the scientific method to cover the fact that they cannot prove a thing so they don't look so stupid. Here's a statement about it from the National Center for Science Education:
“The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is ‘The Scientific Method’, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. In this parody of scientific methods, if a hypothesis passes the test set up by the crucial experiment, that is, if it is confirmed by direct observation, then it is ‘proven’ and it is considered a fact or a law and it is true for all time.
“In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of ‘The Scientific Method’.
"In the inaugural issue of RNCSE, Alters (1997) proposed that the goal of evolution education should be to teach students to believe in evolution. He argued that educators have resisted teaching evolution with the goal of student belief on the basis of five misconceptions. These are (Alters 1997: 16):
1) “belief” means little more than personal convictions — no empirical evidence;
2) “belief” is never a goal in public education;
3) evolution has little empirical evidence;
4) belief cannot be assessed, therefore it does not belong as an educational goal;
5) teaching evolution with belief as a goal is tantamount to proselytizing students"
So, why are these scientists not conforming to the traditional scientific method like my wife must do every day in her experiements? Because they cannot test their theories. They can only theorize and hypothesize, but can never recreate their hypothesis.
Now, look back at the fathers of science. Most were creationists, actually, and accreditted God with creating science and order and intelligent design, yet they still discovered things like gravity and other laws of physics. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example:
He said: "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men whoe were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
And also: All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer. (Perloff, p241.)
His accomplishments were as follows:
He formulated his law of universal gravitation adding mathematical strength to Johannes Kepler's mathematical formulations of planetary motion.
He developed the theory of calculus at the same time as Leibniz.
He discovered that white light was made up of all the colours of the visible spectrum, by passing white light through one prism to form all the colours, and then passing it through another prism to recombine the colours back into white light again.
Using that knowledge of light, he improved the telescope.
He formulated his three famous laws of motion, including the law of inertia. 
He summarized a lot of his formulations in his book Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (mathematical principles of natural philosophy), and his work made great contributions to mathematics, physics and astronomy even for today.
This great scientist was also a creationist who saw order in the cosmos. He said: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being."
He also saw the senselessness in atheism, saying: "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
Here's another quote I came across:
"Many of the world's great scientists have been Christians, and they have followed the example of Johannes Kepler, the founder of physical astronomy who discovered laws of planetary motion and the discipline of celestial mechanics and who demonstrated the heliocentricity of the solar system. Kepler's philosophy of science was to "think God's thoughts after him..."
"When Pasteur declared in a lecture that "science brings man nearer to God," Maury, Newton, Carver and scores of other groundbreaking creation scientists agreed. And they also agreed that science isn't man's greatest pursuit but that he should "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness" (Matthew 6:33)."
So, actually, a lot of the discoveries of science can be attributed to creationists in the past with a high belief of God. It wasn't until the 1800th century when Darwin started proposing the theory of evolution on a larger scale that scientists started to consider other possibilities. And evolution wasn't really taken seriously in broad academia until 1963 when the Supreme Court ruled that it was ok to teach it in schools.
The case was won using a tooth from the Scopes Trial of 1928. The tooth was found in Nevada and it was said to be a prehistorica man (Nevada Man, which can still be found in textbooks dispite its being disproven). They used the tooth in the 1963 trial and won. In 1964, the paleontologists went back to Nevada to dig up the rest of the skeleton in which they found the tooth only to find out that it was a pig's skeleton. Evolution made it into schools by way of a pig's tooth because scientists were SOOOOO sure that it was a prehistoric man's tooth. That tooth went to the Smithsonian where it still resides today, and an entire prehistoric man and his family was built for display around that one single pig's tooth. No prehistoric man bones have ever been found. Each has been either shown to be false or misunderstood in their interpretation. Yet most all of them are still found in textbooks dispite their disproval.
Evolutionists really grasp at things they can hang on to, regardless of their validity. Doesn't sound very scientific to me, especially since they have to redefine the scientific theory. A while back I read how a scientist was showing how Evolution scientists had redefined the scientific method to work for them and their theories. How sad is that. They can't accept that it's just a theory that cannot be tested. They have to make it appear more factual through altering scientific interpretation.
But this topic is not about science, though... don't want to go into that. That's a whole other can of worms. Just wanted to correct your statement a bit.