Evolution is proven to occur

((A)) Whereas evolution being a natural science theory is unable to be proven, its occurrence is also unproveable. The statement "Evolution is proven to occur" is grammatically and scientifically unsupported and is false. "Proven", and proof, is a binary position and cannot honestly be applied to any scientific theory. This is because scientific theories can never be "absolute" in their condition - such as absolutely true or absolutely false. Real scientists are wary of anyone who proposes any scientific theory as being "proven" - because the scientific method insists that 'everything' in science is just a theory and is, nor can be, proven.[1] "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. ... Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science."[2] "Strict proof is possible only in formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, not natural sciences"[3] ((B)) The notion that a black bat is not as appetizing as a white bat does not prove that evolution has "occurred". What it may prove is that many observations are consistently concluding that white bats are preyed upon with more frequency than black bats. While this may be attributed to their color it does not suddenly support the given definition of evolution. First, there is nothing in that example which deduces "differences due to changes from natural processes over a long time"[4] Otherwise, it is not my burden to deduce, discern, or discover your argument in whatever references you provide. Your argument should be presented here. Speciation as a sub-process for evolution is also bound to the natural sciences and lacks the associated ability to be "proven". Evolutionary biology is unproven as a scientific theory due to the dictates of the scientific method. Alternately, if one considers Evolutionary biology as not being a scientific but rather as a metaphysical research program[5] then it is not testable at all and fails to be proven within any paradigm (i.e. is in the realm of the supernatural[6]). ((C)) The theory of evolution being valid or invalid is not the question for this debate, but rather the ability for such a theory to be "proven", by which case it is intrinsically impossible for that to occur. While one may increase its probability and predictability through observation, the scientific community does not consider this theory to be proven and a reasonable exploration into the matter concludes likewise. Simply put, the statement "Evolution is proven to occur" is inaccurate and false. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://www.creationism.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...