A lot of people here have the right idea. But many also are using the wrong terms.
Semantics? Yes. But if you want to make a statement which others can understand, you better use the correct terms, otherwise none of us can ever be sure what you really mean. Thus all the logical and verbal bickering. Because it does matter.
This mainly goes for you gyrene (not a personal attack, but just an observation) - it is up to you to ensure we get the proper meaning of your statements. This requires a precise application of language and specialized terms. You actually have a better idea of what science is about than many people, but your articulation of it is rather lacking.
There is a lot of nuance as to the nature of "truth" and "falsehood", "right" and "wrong", etc when it comes to science.
As others have stated, science as it is currently practiced is not about proving things. That is because science as we use it deals with generalizations.
Sure you can prove many specific statements about the physical world, but they are typically not interesting because they have no applicability to other situations. E.g., you can prove that I ate food today. But does this mean I will eat food tomorrow? Does this mean that everybody eats food? Scientists actually grapple with this sort of dilemma! The more precise/rigid you make the theory, the less predictive power it has, and the less useful it is.
As a practical matter, generalizations about the physical world are impossible to prove. Quite simply, we will never have a complete data set of our universe. We will never be able to observe every cell, every atom, every person. Even if we had a complete (and to infinite precision) data set of all possible physical parameters at all points in space-time within our universe, we cannot possibly test every possible combination of these parameters.
So the idea of proving things is not useful to science. What about disproving? Sure it's comparatively easy, it only takes one counterexample, but disproofs do not a scientific theory make as they have no predictive value. Which brings me to another point.
Science constructs models of the physical world and the aim of the model is to provide us with true statements as much as possible, especially statements about events we have not yet observed. Predictive power is important since that is the "upshot" of all this science. If we can't use our knowledge, then what good is it?
Not to say disproofs aren't useful - they tell us our models are incomplete, they point us in the right direction for further research, and a whole host of other things.
Given the impossibility of proving scientific models, what are we left with? What's the point if we can't "know for sure"?
Would you take 1000:1 odds in your favor on a bet? What about 1 million:1? That is what is ACTUALLY behind those statements you see in the news about scientists "proving" something or the other (assuming the research was sound in the first place). For instance, the odds involved in claiming discovery of a new particle are roughly 1.7 million:1.
Finally, I want to touch on a point that is especially relevant to the whole evolution debate - the simplicity of a theory. A good theory is as simple as possible but not simpler. Why is this important? Because the more crap you need to explain something, the more questions that must be answered to give you those good odds. This is where every theory involving the supernatural goes way off base.
I'll use God as an example, since He's quite popular when it comes to this type of thing. When it comes to evolution - if God designed all the species to be a certain way, WHY did he chose these specific traits? Why not do it some other way? Why design species that function on the planet Earth? Why not design species that will function on say... Jupiter? From a practical standpoint, does this theory give us anything useful (predictive power)? If you have an answer to these questions, what scientific evidence do you have to back it up? And the biggest question/loophole of all - how do you know that God even exists?
It's possible. But is there an explanation which is based on a system we already understand and is reasonably well tested (i.e., it has good odds)? Yes indeed - genetics, probability, and mutation; in other words the theory of macro-evolution (as gyrene puts it, not a bad term).
True, neither explanation is testable, but which is a better explanation? Which is simpler? Which is based on a system which is already well tested? Which has less logical loopholes?
That in the end is why no well-accepted scientific theory involves God or any other supernatural phenomena - they just makes things more complicated without being at all useful.
To close, let me just say there's no reason you can't believe in God just as there's no reason religion and science can't get along. It's just that there's way too many reasons to NOT use God as an explanation in science. And I wouldn't put any bets on it...
BUT, as long as you do not mix the two, I'd say you're fine.
