So you can only have two genuine, scientific findings.
1. Confirmation.
2. Falsification.
That may be true, however there are another two factors which require consideration:
3. Productivity
4. Amount of Trials
#3
If a scientific theory or hypothesis is successfully used to produce work product which could not be generate through normal means, we can infer without experimentation, that the hypothesis is working correctly.
In evolution, this is seen in both bacterial resistances and the battle against them. We can predict, and try and overcome, increasing resistances to antibiotics based on our knowledge of evolution.
In the absence of evolution, there would be no threat and no need.
Or, for another example, geologists use fossil evidence to date and identify strata which in turn helps them to locate mineral deposits. If the information that was generated by evolution about the fossil record were false, then those disciples which are relying on that information for successful work, would fail.
#4
There comes a time when a theory has so much supporting evidence, is so thoroughly tested, that it becomes next to impossible to conceive that all the evidence and testing will suddenly vanish.
Gravity is one such example. It's so absolutely unlikely that gravity is incorrect, that to continue "testing" it in an attempt to falsify it is a fools errand.
Evolution is another example. The evidence is overwhelming.
In fact, the only people questioning evolution are doing so based entirely on an outdated religious text. Talk about foolishness.
™ Version 4.2