Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

To say that evolution has been scientifically proved would require that it be first studied then determined scientifically. To do so would require that the question be analyzed for its scientific qualities; those true and those false. Any falsehood would constitute a rejection of the theory as a whole, and the proponents would have to start again from a different hypothesis. This does not in any way speak to any objective measure of the absolute truth or falsehood of the theory itself, but rather the wording and logic behind the theory, as any theory can only be judged on the basis of its wording to be judged objectively, and not subjectively which would only be a matter of opinion. Therefore the rejection of the scientific method is complete in the sense that it cannot be disproven on the basis of absolute knowledge outside the tools of argument available; namely words, which are the basis for any theory or hypothesis being argued, defended, or subjected to tests to find weaknesses in order to reject that theory. Such a theory cannot be truly known or even truly unknown, for to be truly unknown one must first truly know what is not to be known, and surely that itself cannot be known, truly. Really in reality it is difficult to prove with absolute certainty or absolute uncertainty the absolute absurdity or surdity of what is known or what is to be unknown, even at a future date in time. Space. Space, the final frontier, you are already here, but knowing exactly where you are with respect to where you were is certainly uncertain for even a population of sodium atoms at or near absolute zero can not be known in terms of absolute position or velocity, for as the velocity approaches absolute zero, we become more and more certain of that velocity, but must necessarily also become more and more uncertain of its position, each atoms wave function spreading out until it overlaps with its neighbors until it is totally indistinguishable from its neighbors forming a singular blob of matter. But this is only verified by experiment, which is the only and best test to be used by the scientific method, which can only truly be used to reject a hypothesis. That said, a hypothesis may be accepted, but not scientifically, but for all intents and purposes may be treated as absolute truth, baring any contrary evidence; as occums razor would point out the simplest hypothesis which explains the phenomenon is the most likely, again baring any contrary evidence. But when that evidence cannot be explored by conventional methods of observation ie: through the senses directly or indirectly relating to the physical and tangible world, then such a theory cannot be honestly and objectively analyzed or compared to the princeps of our understanding of the world and its phenomenon; it is detached from them. Surely such a word is a word apart from other words in the world of words such a word is subject to suspicion and castigation for being as it is a word not of the other words but another word of that which cannot be known by what other words are known knowingly it is known that what cannot be known cannot be be said while being said to be known for that which is known to be known was already said, or implied, the implication being that the knowledge of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as it was written by the word in words and communicated thusly; by words, cannot be known by the same token, for the token has two sides, each side opposite the other, and each side opposing the direction of the other, without either side facing the other, but rather facing away, as it is when two sides face away from one another but do not look at each other directly. So it is that the argument, whether by proof of evidence or scientific method or any other method, that the theory cannot directly oppose its opposite argument, but can only be described from an outside observer who does not stand and look outwards only from one side or argument. One that holds the token cannot stand upon it. For one cannot at the same time support one side of an argument, and also observe objectively between arguments. Neither can the word be subdivided or separated without losing the intended meaning of the whole. But without deductive reasoning we are lost. But without inductive reasoning we cannot make general statements about the world. But without particulars the general cannot be described. But without apriori knowledge of the general, we cannot be sure of its particulars. And so the scientific method, while a tool used to disprove but said to prove cannot prove but only disprove and then only if the subject is implicitly accepted, and the method of test also being accepted in its general power to come to particular conclusions of what is known to be not true. That the evolution of the scientific method has developed is proof enough that such a theory cannot be disproven. Or has it?