Isn't the only thing you actually can do in science? Disprove or fail to disprove, but there is no prove.
That's a big part of science, but there's also coming up with "best descriptions".
Science is a way to come up with descriptions which encapsulate observational information. For instance, our notions of the laws of motion allow us to predict where a cannonball will land without consulting an almanac of weights, powder charges, and cannon angle. Half a page of equations encapsulates all the observational data.
Whenever a study makes observations and notices that the data appear linear, they are essentially saying "these observations are described by the simple, linear model". Occam's Razor, the scientific method, and Minimum Description Length are all the same thing.
This is why religion is at odds with science: science is predicting things from simpler models, while religion assumes the more complex model with less predictability ("God's plan is unknowable").
It's impossible to prove any simple model is correct (as in, this "unprovability" can be mathematically proven), but you can measure the likelihood of any two explanations. At this point in our knowledge, the religious explanation is far less likely than the scientific models.
The likelihood that the religious explanation is correct will never be zero. Zealots are just clinging to this last shred, pointing out (correctly) that there is still hope.