You can't use science to prove science. It becomes tautological.
Would not that seem to indicate that you can't use religion to prove religion either?
Science isn't used to prove science. It is used to discover and explain evidence which can be used to provide viable answers to burning questions. Be they about evolution or why airplanes fly. Or at least science tries its darndest to do that. That isn't tautological. It is interesting and useful and very much worth pursuing. Which is more than I can say for inaccurate ancient history.
What do you think is tautological about inventing serums that are used to wipe smallpox off the face of the earth? Do you need proof beyond that because science was involved? Landing exploratory craft on Mars. Is that tautological? If all sorts of highly suspect science goes into creating and launching a space probe to another planet, and it gets there and starts sending back data, what part isn't happening because it is tautological?
If scientists predict that global warming will reduce sea ice and cause sea levels to rise, and then, son of a bitch, the ice is melting and the sea levels are rising, where is the tautological error in their predictions?
Science doesn't need to prove science. The proof, or at least the evidence, is in the pudding. And until you can explain why life forms that have been defined by science as being the animals and plants that lived in very early geologic periods, like the giant insects of the Pennsylvanian period, are always, as in every frickin' time, found in older, deeper rock than the bones of T-Rex. All you need to do to disprove evolution is go out and find a giant dragonfly that is buried in shallower rock than a velociraptor, and you win. But science predicts that you cannot possibly do that. And not a single anti-evolution "scientist" has ever bothered trying to do that because they know they can't do it.
If their death was, oh, I dunno, flood based, then the critters should be all jumbled up. There should be fossilized humans in with the dead dinosaurs because god was mad at them too, as per your book. But there are no humans mixed in. You can spend your whole life looking for human remains amongst the dead plants and animals that buried in rock all over the world and you will be what we euphemistically call shit out of luck.
Paleontologists will give you a list of the order that animals lived. And they will tell you where animals are yet to be dug up. And disinterested third parties can stand over your shoulder and watch while you run around with a shovel trying to find a Ordovician period nautilus buried above a triceratops, and if you do, you win. But you can't do that because it is impossible. Believing in the impossible is easy. Doing it is somewhat harder.
If the claims made by people who say that evolution is real are indeed false, it should be a cinch to disprove them. So easy a first grader should be able to do it. Because that many lies can't possibly hold up if they are as false as fundamentalists claim.
When you guys with bibles can get your story straight and quit disagreeing with each other over the gross and the minute, when you can all agree on which parts are literal and which parts are allegory and such, when you can demonstrate that it is indeed possible that the universe began less than ten thousand years ago because you would expect to see A, B and C in space and on earth if that were the case, then you have something to work with. And hey, an unquestionably working prayer or two would be nice. But gosh, if you don't have time for that, don't worry about it.
In the meantime, you having nothing. And you can't fool us. But apparently you sure can fool yourselves.