"Experimental verification" can only be done through experiment because it's *experimental* verification. Kind of a tautology there. But *verification* does not have to be done through experiments. You can observe the world, make predictions about the world, and verify your predictions about the world by observation. Actual laboratory experiments are wonderful, but not a requirement for science. Even the hard sciences. Some things just don't lend themselves to experiment.
For example, black holes cannot be experimented upon in a lab. But we can observe black holes, measure their effects, test our theories about gravity (from which black holes come) against the world, and create very hard very solid science to cover them.
The same is true of evolution, contrary to the point of he author.
“For example, black holes cannot be experimented upon in a lab. But we can observe black holes, measure their effects, test our theories about gravity (from which black holes come) against the world, and create very hard very solid science to cover them.
The same is true of evolution, contrary to the point of he author.”
But it isn’t. We can’t observe anything on the timescales required to verify many of the predictions of evolutionists, so even that type of verification is beyond our reach. So we can’t construct any real experiments to verify the grandest predictions of Darwin, and we can’t observe them and verify them that way, we are simply asked to believe them absent any verification at all. That’s not science.