Since you can't prove the ToE works in a lab in a reasonable amount of time, then the ToE can't be proven to a high degree of accuracy as most other scientific laws are proven.
Seriously, Parasomnium, you should know better than to propose this. If you don't bother to recognize that the time span needed to prove the ToE disqualifies it from ever becoming a scientific law, why should I bother talking to you?
You really should give up trying to use the language of science; you're no damn good at it. Virtually every statement you make is wrong. A few examples:
1) The theory of evolution is not studying to become a "scientific law." In science, theories and laws are entirely different things. Laws describe some regularity, often with mathematical precision, but theories explain laws! A theory is the highest level of explanation in science.
2) A process does not have to be duplicated in its entirety to be satisfactorily explained in science. Nor does it have to be observed in its entirety to be understood.
3) This "proven to a high degree of accuracy" is a creationist talking point, not something that has anything to do with science.
4) The basic tenets of the theory of evolution have been observed in the laboratory, as well as in nature.
You might be able to sell your flawed notion of science to creationists and a few local school boards, but many of us here are scientists and we can tell the difference.
But what is most amusing is that you accept creationism, which has no scientific evidence supporting it, while rejecting science, the scientific method, and all evolutionary sciences -- which have mountains of evidence supporting them. I guess that's creation "science" at work, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2