Evolution has been proved beyond REASONABLE doubt. The problem is Creationists cling to the infinitesimally small chance that somehow something that works so well could be wrong.
WHY EVOLUTION IS A FACT, IT REALLY HAPPEBED
The thing is, evolution works so damn well to accurately describe how b biology works. So well that:
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
By DNA evidence alone there is less than 1 chance in 10^128 that evolution did not happen.
The theory part is: HOW did evolution happen? That it DID is no longer open to serious debate.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Court United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Full case name Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.
Argued September 26, 2005–November 4, 2005
Decided December 20 2005
Citation(s) 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Evolution was proven to be a valid, well supported by observation and prediction, science under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Creation Science / Intelligent Design was proven to NOT be science, but rather religion and completely lacking in supporting evidence, observation, or prediction.
Judge was a practicing Christian.
This was THE test of: Can Creationism be taught as science in public schools. Both sides were well funded, sent their best Expert Witnesses and their best lawyers. The Creationist side was not just beaten, they were crushed under the weight of evidence the evolution side presented. Every argument the Creationists put forward was shot down easily. By contrast, the evolution side's evidence, in some cases, was so compelling, the Creationists had no rebuttal and could not even cross-examine. That is solid evidence that is so good it cannot be challenged.
EXAMPLE: Kenneth R. Miller, PhD, Professor of Biology, Brown University, and co-author of the most widely used high school Biology text in the USA. Dr. Miller testified in support of teaching evolution at the Dover, PA trial.
The interesting thing is: The trial was run under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That means that the Dr Miller's testimony and the evidence he planned to offer was known to the Intelligent Design/Creationist side through his depositions (This is what I am going to say.), interrogatories (This is how I will answer your questions.) and discovery (This is the evidence I will offer) in preparation for the case. They knew what was coming and yet their experts provided no counter argument to his evidence; he was not even cross-examined on that testimony. (Dr Miller’s testimony was a “kill shot to the head.”) If they had a rebuttal, they would have offered it. They did not. In addition, the Federal Judge (a conservative, strict constructionist) that had sent people to prison on the basis of DNA evidence would have laughed the ID/Creationists out of his court if they had tried to argue that DNA did not prove relationship.
If what you say is correct, how did the ID side lose so badly? Fact is, even with all the best expert witnesses that the ID side had it could not present a single fact or observation to refute evolution. Not one.
“The second thing that you saw at the trial, was that when data was introduced at the trial, which I and another witness introduced from whole genome sequencing, the intelligent design advocates just literally had nothing to say. We weren't asked questions in cross-examination, the other side never brought it up, they never argued against it, they just left it.” Ken Miller, PhD on neither he nor the other evolution Expert Witnesses NOT being cross-examined on their testimony.
Creationists often complain that the judge and the legal system was biased against Creationism. But, when your case is so weak that you cannot even cross examine the opposition, you have no hope of winning.