There are at least a coupe of dozen provable, agreed upon processes. You have confused a discussion about which is more important with a discussion of which one exists.
....not so! The magazine The American Biology Teacher said: “Various well known scientists express their views ranging from educated caution, to question, and on to direct opposition to the theory.” The English magazine New Scientist stated: “It is proving particularly difficult to understand the evolution of man. We know too little of the timing or mechanisms of evolution, nor is there enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorizing out of
the realms of fantasy.”
The British medical journal On Call reported: “Evolution cannot be supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology....and since
high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible.” And Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: “The typical evolutionary explanation doesn’t make sense in view of today’s knowledge.”
Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth, after years of careful and impartial investigation found the evidence for evolution so flimsy that he declared, after reading a typical book by a leading evolutionist: “If I had to oppose that man in court I could get his case thrown out.”
“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.
“This is
not mere quibbling. The profession has worked itself into an embarrassing position when Sir Julian Huxley tells the television audience: ‘The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact,’ while at almost the same time Professor Mayr, addressing himself to serious students, says: ‘The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate.’
“Such an enormous discrepancy between two leaders is bad for the standing of the profession. The public may rightly feel that it has been paltered with.”
A dictionary defines “palter” as to “deal crookedly.” And
this is exactly what more and more persons have come to feel about the explanations given for evolution.
