Why does evolutionary science seem to be

Assuming that you mean by "we" = the evolutionary-scientists who study nature in all of it's grandeur, then how may I ask, do "we" prove or disprove the existence of a creator without destroying or watering down the scientific-method? The existence of a creator is not a testable hypothesis by strict scientific standards, and therefor cannot be proven or disproven by the methods of science. Science has it's limits; the scientist cannot be dispassionate or otherwise about "God", because "God" is a religious matter. It is absolutely incorrect to say that "we" are trying to prove the nonexistence of a creator or of an after-life. The reailty of a creator is a matter of religious faith, not of evolutionary science.

Just how, may I ask does your pal Tim Wallace back up his claim?

As I have said elswhere, a scientist who proposes hypotheses that cannot be tested, and makes statements that cannot be supported by inference, observation, & experiment, does not get very far in the sphere of scientific peer-review. This Tim Wallace person is not respected by the scientific community on the subject of evolution regardless of his PhD in Chemistry.

Sorry this took so long.
No, science is not religious in the "I have FAITH that evolution occures" sense. Science is about wonder and curiosity, and using logical and consistent ways(observation, experimentation, etc.)to find answers to what makes us wonder. The only way, I think, that science demonstrates "faith" is when scientists have come to rely on the methods of scientific inquiry, and this is due to the fact that these "methods" have worked so many times in the past in finding the answers. Although there seem to be more books these days written by scientist writers on the subject of God,(God & the New Physics, Paul Davies for example), these are usually popular works not written for scientific peer review. I may be wrong however on this as I don't know if "Science", a leading peer review journal has ever accepted for publication articles with "God" as a subject. This certainly shows the character of science in that it doesn't delve too deeply into religious questions. I personally do not deny the possibility of a creator-god, but the "...probabilty of a creator..." as you say is for me a matter that cannot be tested with the methods of science. Therefor I as well as scientists in general would agree, I think, that the question can be left to the theologians. Perhaps someday, science may create a test whereby God, or gods, can or can't be shown to exist, but faith in an "authority" (like the Bible) doesn't cut the mustard in science.