As the jury, we had the difficult job of sorting it all out, of reconstructing the past, unobserved by any of us, as best we could from partial and conflicting evidence. We didn't have direct access to the past, only the evidence which existed in the present and the stories of those who had witnessed portions of the past events. When attempting to answer the origins' question, scientists are in a similar situation. Science rightly deals with the present state of nature and the processes, which presently operate, in nature. All agree on the nature of the genetic code or the array of fossils, or the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry.
Science is limited to the present.
But, clearly, that is not the same thing as empirical science. Both evolution and creation are historical reconstructions, not observations. As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution. All we can do is study the evidence in the present and see which historical reconstruction is more likely correct. We have the universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists.