EHRC Homepage | New Category | Your Questions
That question has been partially answered in the response to the first question above, and I recommend you read or reread what is stated there for context. Recall that science is not about "proving" anything, and that a "fact" is just an observation in a context. Thus the statements are not scientifically useful or correct. It is also worth noting that at least some scientists partially "get it" regarding this point.
Ernst Mayr, one of the chief architects of modern evolutionary theory elaborates on the nature of evolutionary theory in a recent article in Scientific American. After describing evolutionary biology as a "concept", he goes on to define it as a historical narrative in the following poignant passage:
"For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science -- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already
taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the
particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." [Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American). ]
I recommend you read the entire article for context, but as a historical "science", evolutionary thinking is certainly a long way from biochemistry or molecular biology, which are much more akin to chemistry or physics in their experimental procedures. Thus to assert anything with respect to what evolutionary theory can or cannot be is only valid in a historical/philosophical context. Such a concession is not likely to be made by scientists who spend their lives promoting evolution as a "fact".