Sorry to disagree with you there, but if evolution had been definitively proven there would be no argument (much as there is no argument about the earth not being flat) - i.e. there is actual proof. It is not a theory, as evolution is. Despite many scientists’ attempts to twist what they have found into some sort of “eureka” moment, they have not succeeded. However, I suspect you are wedded to this theory, so we will have to let the matter go there as you cannot prove evolution - nor can you disprove any of the other explanations for the origins of mankind. There is much more evidence, like it or not, for an intelligent creator than there is for the idea that everything just sort of came together.
You are mixing facts and theories. They are entirely different:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.(I have a lot more definitions, as they tend to be used in science, on my FR home page.)Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Here is another quotation that might help to explain the difference:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.However, I suspect you are wedded to this theory, so we will have to let the matter go there as you cannot prove evolution - nor can you disprove any of the other explanations for the origins of mankind.A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
No need to "prove" evolution. It is a science and it works on accumulation of evidence or falsification -- not proof. So far the theory of evolution has accumulated an immense amount of supporting evidence, and there is no known data to falsify it.
There is much more evidence, like it or not, for an intelligent creator than there is for the idea that everything just sort of came together.
I am aware that many follow revelation, scripture, the Bible, and a multitude of beliefs -- many of which are internally inconsistent or mutually contradictory -- among the world's ca. 4,300 religions, but I am aware of no such evidence that "proves" a creator, intelligent or otherwise. Perhaps you are confusing religious belief with scientific evidence? (Hey, that would make a great tagline!)