Most of us are familiar with the distinction between facts and the interpretation of facts. Objective facts are often interpreted based upon the worldview, paradigms, assumptions, culture, and even personality of the interpreter. Facts do not change. Our interpretation of facts may.
This is certainly true when it comes to history, but also true when it comes to “science.” For example, a young earth creationist interprets the fossil record as suggesting rapid massive burial, probably a result of Noah’s flood. An evolutionist looks at the same pile of fossils and says small floods buried them over millions of years.
I don’t fault researchers for interpreting facts in light of their accepted models, but I do fault them for presenting their interpretations of the facts as the facts themselves.
Scientists are puzzled at the perfection of the universe and particularly our planet. Planet earth meets the plethora of delicate conditions necessary to sustain complicated life forms — like we humans. Even apart from the issue of how we came to be, the issue of how we can thrive anywhere in the universe is statistically challenging.
The laws of physics are too finely tuned to have been random, and thus they suggest Intelligent Design. Modern paradigms embraced by the majority of the scientific community, however, allow no room for a Creator. Enter the theory of the multiverse — multiple parallel universes.
"According to a Jan. 10 article in the journal Science Advances, volunteers for experiments as diverse as intelligence tests and pain sensitivity studies have been found to respond differently when they are dealing with a researcher of the opposite gender." BPNews
Compared to biblical creation views, scientific creationist views expand the role of science in the understanding of creation. The views that fall under this heading are normally connected with a uniformitarian view of earth history that extends billions of years, punctuated by occasional catastrophic events.9 These are old-earth understandings of creation. The scientific views are different in another way from biblical creation: most do not posit a completed creation. The processes of creation (evolution) are ongoing today in most of the following views and therefore there is no “completion” or “cessation” of creation as there is in the biblical creation views.
The day-age view is an old-earth explanation that teaches that the six days of creation were not regular days but rather were a sequence of geological ages, giving time for the several-billion year age of the earth taught by secular science.
"Diagnostic tools that chart the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones globally and regionally — such as their number and the energy associated with them — show a cyclic pattern to hurricane activity but no long-term trend." Climate Change and the Christian Faith
If someone tells you a scientific theory has been proven, you should ask what they mean by that. Normally, they mean "they've convinced themselves that this thing is true," or they have overwhelming evidence that a specific idea is valid over a specific range. But nothing in science can ever truly be proven. It's always subject to revision.