Hi, Endo!
There were a few misstatements in your post.
Endo writes:
What about the Supreme Court's Ruling on Creationism in Schools:
They said that 1. The science must be observable and 2. Must be scientifically proven.
The word "observable" does not appear in the Supreme Court ruling on
Edwards vs. Aguillard, the only time the high court has had an opportunity to rule on this issue. While the Supreme court made no statement about observability, you are otherwise correct in saying that evidence is that which is in some way apparent to the five senses, in other words, observable.
The word "proven" only appears in excerpts from the original Louisiana statute, revealing that that legislature had little understanding of the nature of science. Science is not about proving things. In fact, nothing in science is ever proven. Even more, it is a fundamental requirement of science that its findings be held tentatively, always open to change in light of new information or improved understanding. Your phrase "scientifically proven" is a contradiction in terms.
So any time you see someone saying that evolution isn't science because evolution hasn't been proven, then you know they don't know what science is.
Science is the building of frameworks of understanding (theories) around bodies of evidence (data collected from observations). New data usually fits within the framework of existing theories, but when new observations are inconsistent with existing theory then for a while the new observations will be questioned, but if the observations are repeated and verified sufficient times then it is the theory itself that comes into question and is changed. That's why theories are tentative. After all, you couldn't change a theory that was already "100% assured truth."
By the way, the Supreme Court did not attempt to define the nature of science in their ruling. You may be thinking of the federal court ruling in the case of
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education where Judge Overton included a characterization of science. Quoting from the ruling:
Judge Overton writes:
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
Moving on:
If a scientific fact isn't proven, then its not a 100% assured truth.
Science is not about truth, but about understanding the world and universe around us as best we can. Nothing in science is "100% assured truth." We become more and more certain with more and more data, but that certainty never reaches 100%.
If it's not, which Evolution isn't, then It's not the scientific fact proven to be true which so many claim it to be.
This is pretty much the same statement I earlier said indicates when you know someone doesn't know what science is.
--Percy