Science never closes the door on new, future evidence; just produce the evidence

"Scientific proof" is a colloquial term that is somewhat of a misnomer. When scientists ask for evidence "supporting" an hypothesis or theory, what they are saying colloquially is actually: evidence that when submitted to extensive testing is "not rejected." Testable theories and hypotheses are subjected to numerous opportunities to be rejected, i.e. disproven. When there is no convincing evidence against an hypothesis, scientists describe the results as a "failure to reject" the hypothesis. (In mathematics, theoretical physics, and related endeavors, starting assumptions are carefully described. In these areas of science, a "proof" rests on the quality of those assumptions.) This empirical approach to new evidence means that science is always open to new evidence, or a new analysis of existing evidence.

For example, Newtonian physics was the dominant paradigm for approximately 230 years until Einstein proposed special and general relativity, and observations of stars located behind the sun confirmed his predictions. Newtonian physics still works pretty well on everyday planet Earth, but it fails to explain observations in orbital mechanics and other areas of physics and cosmology that Einsteinian relativity handles quite well.

It is this openness to the possibility of new evidence - even 230 years later - that shows the invalidity of the IDC perspective of "contrived dualism" (as noted by Judge Jones) that there are only two logical alternatives to a theory of the origin of species: evolution or IDC. The modern theory of evolution - a paradigm or grand theory of science - might always be contradicted or completely overthrown at some time in the future by a new theory presenting evidence that no one in the 21st Century can even begin to imagine. But until that evidence is submitted to test and fails to be rejected, the modern paradigm of evolution will remain dominant with respect to the origin of species.