There is much debate in Evolution and Creationism. However, before jumping into the debate, most need to understand the difference of operational/historical science.
Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.
Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.
Most can agree on what they currently see, but the dichotomy comes on the source of what they see.
A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.
Let's face it, everyone comes in with some bias. It's similiar to relationships, eveyone has baggage. We cannot help it.
However, it's important to accept the fact, that all have bias, irregardless of how many initials behind ones name.
Assumptions can be likened to faith. A creationist assumes (has faith) that God created the earth and an evolutionist assumes (has faith) that random chance created the earth. An assumption is a belief that is based on something that cannot be proved. Assumptions are used to help interpret facts that do not have a clear meaning. For example, evolutionists look at rock layers they find in the ground and because they assume, believe, or have faith in the idea that the earth is very, very old they interpret the fact that there are layers in the earth to mean that they were laid down over long periods of time. However, a creationist can take that same fact, that there are layers of rock in the earth, and because he or she assumes, believes, or has faith in the idea of a young earth can interpret the layers as being laid down quickly during the flood of Noah. However, if an assumption is wrong then the conclusion will most likely be wrong as well.
As the statement above says, assumptions must be made on historical science. When those assumptions fail, we must look for another. I find it very interesting man's assumptions seem to change as we continue to learn more. However, as scripture states, the Bible (JudeoChristian) remains the same, now, before and forever.
Assumptions are fundamental in Historical Sciences. Because a historical event cannot be recreated and observed, there will always be assumptions built into any theory about that historical event. Therefore we can see that in the Creation/Evolution debate nobody has proven anything about the origin of the Earth, life, and man. There are basic assumptions being made on both sides of the argument which cannot be definitively proven.
