Despite some atheist’s claims that science provides evidence that a god does not exist, as it is related to the origins of man or the universe, there is no such thing as scientific proof. For a proof to exist it must be irrefutable and forever true. It must be absolute and final and there cannot exist future knowledge or theory which will threaten it in becoming untrue.
Science theory is based upon knowledge which is tentative and provisional. It is based on evidence that exists as currently the best probability amongst other prospects and may become untrue when or if a better theory is established in the future. Even experimental evidence does not establish proof; it only provides compelling evidence for one theory as opposed to the evidence of other theories. The use of the phrase “empirical evidence” is spewed forth like sacred prayers from many atheists. Empirical evidence is information gathered by observation and experimentation observed by the physical senses….coupled with inference to form a conclusion. Inference….as in assumption, conjecture, interpretation or suggestion. Reasonable speculation based on past experience is still speculation.
I will concede that the majority of scientific evidence is not likely to be proven untrue, but equally I could win the mega-million dollar jackpot by picking up a discarded lottery ticket from the trash. It is unlikely to happen, but there is always the possibility that it could. As example, Steven Hawking revised his singularity theorem and conceded his position on the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle, proving that scientific theories put forth by the greatest of human minds are still subject to newer data which cause them to be revised or discarded altogether. If a theory can be challenged or threatened to be shown as possibly faulty it is not a proof. I may personally subscribe to evolutionary theory over biblical creation doctrine. But I realize that evolution is a theory, not a proof. There is evidence which makes evolution likely, even probable, but since there has been no one standing in observation of the process and documenting the observations throughout the passing of time it remains a theory, subject to be proven faulty if or when a newer theory with more credible evidence is mounted.
In saying this I can be accused of a “God in the Gaps” approach. But I am not saying that because there is no scientific proofs established on origins that it translates to proof of a god. I am saying that theories and faiths are on the same side of the line. Everything believed about the creation of the universe and the origins of man is faith-based, it is speculation accepted through preference. Some have faith in scientific theory while others have faith in written scriptures, but neither science or the bible offer absolute proofs. The debate between believers and nonbelievers is a sport of arguing opinions and not one of arguing proofs by either side.