You ever taken a Physics course? A whole lot of math there.
You can argue with me all you want. This is what scientist state. In fact this is often used as a response when creationists claim, "science can't prove evolution." It's a flawed statemet, which results in flawed responses.
It has been demonstrated in this thread, and the evolution one, that Darwinism is an interpretation (inference) of evidence, such as the fossil record, natural selection, etc. You cannot PROVE Darwinism in the sense you can prove 2+2=4. That doesn't mean there aren't persuasive arguments for the theory. But, that also doesn't mean that there are not alternative theories. Intelligent design follows the mulitple competing hyposthesis method, which Darwinism also utilizes.
For example, if someone states, "I have studied biological evolution, and I BELEIVE that Darwinism (descent with modification) best explains life on our planet," then I have no problem. I would simply ask, "have you considered......' In fact, I have several friends who are theistic evolutionists. I have a friend who is a college biology professor who is a devout Christian. There are many evolutionists who are open and honest about the problems with Darwinism. The openess and honesty dissapears from the Darwinist side is when evolution becomes a philosophical ideology. In other words, its proponents end up sounding just as delusional and unreasonable as the religious people they attack.
We witness the same type of problems from many Christians. They say things like, "evolution isn't true because the Bible says so." No, the Bible doesn't say so.
And so, you have two equally flawed positions arguing with each other, which is exactly what we see on this forum. And what gets lost in this is when people like myself attempt to actually engage in a civil discourse and have a challeging debate, but instead get attacked, and have to spend our time answering one line quips from antagonists.
When people say things like 'Darwinism is a fact' then I have a problem. It isn't a fact. Darwinism is an interpretion of facts. Fossil record, etc.
Or, when they say, 90% of scientist believe in evolution, therefore it's a fact. That is an ad populum fallacy, that is also undermined by equivocation. It tramples over the very definition of what constitutes a "fact."
So, I say all that GBOUT, because it seems you want to argue simply because a creationist, someone who holds a different worldview, has made the claim. When in fact it is the evolutionists who use the statement, "science doesn't prove anything," to defend themselves against bald assertions by creationists.