Here's the rub:  science states that if we can reproduce a cause/effect relationship we get to call it "scientific fact"; failure to do so, despite indicators, leave it in the "scientific theory" pile.  Not that theory isn't highly valuable - we use theories all the time to predict what is probable in a given set of circumstances.

 This is the entire problem with all views of the beginnings of the physical world: both creationism and evolution - and their rigid promoters:  simply put, both are theories - neither of which we can reproduce or observe.  To be dogmatic to a theory simply violates the principles of science and reason.  

To be "fully convinced" either way is, in effect, a religious or faith view.  Yes, we should lean to conviction one way or the other, but to be intolerant or dogmatic about one or the other being absolutely true or factual makes our claims about science and reason suspect.

In theory, a middle ground is to teach both as potentially valid theories - but both sides have their ideological warriors who fail science teaching in this regard.