[GaliemVaelant]

I would say that it has, but what one believes about the earliest days is still on them. The scientific method is very specific, so I'll explain why I believe it has been proven.

We all know what a hypothesis is, but not everyone knows that a hypothesis only becomes a theory when it leads to predictions that come true. This could be longitudinal (predictions about the future) or retrospective. Darwin's hypothesis made accurate retrospective predictions, as supported by the fossile record, hence making it a theory.

A theory is proven when it is found, over the course of years, to be accurate (always within a slight margin of error) and continues to be used to explain phenomenon and make predictions that are found to be true. For example, the classical theory of gravitation is still tested in early-level university physics labs, but there are predictions it makes that are not true on the cosmic scale. Einstein's picture of gravitaition is still a theory even though it explains those discrepencies because predictions it makes (gravity waves, to be specific) have not been found to be true yet.

According to the theory of evolution, small changes in conditions necessary for survival make certain members of a species better suited for it, as we know, and that small genetic mutations that are advantageous lead to members of the species surviving and breeding with greater ease, thus slowly improving the species. This happens and has been very well documented in many cases, including cases that involve human beings. So, longitudinal predictions have come true up to a point.

The summation of these minute changes over large spans of time differentiate various species in a family, according to the theory. This has not been outright proven simply because we haven't been around long enough to see it happen first-hand. But, the fundamental, short-term predictions of evolution are proven. Therefore, yes, evolution has been proven.

However, if one chose not to believe that humans' ancestors were monkeys, that's on them. My personal opinion is that austrolipithicus (our earliest known ancestor) was more animal-like than we are, but wasn't an animal per se.

Now, having posted more than I ever should in one post, I'll add that I'm not a biologist after any fashion, much less an evolutionary one, so there are those here who are much, much more qualified to answer the question. I just wanted to take a stab at it because I know where this topic leads, and I mourn that often religion and science are thought of as mutually exclusive when they're really not.