This is where you're mistaken. With computerized DNA sequencing technology, bacteria genomes can be assembled in a matter of weeks and compared with other previously assembled genomes within hours. Bacteria are relatively simple organisms, their DNA has been well-studied and their life cycles are well known. Cultures of bacteria are first sequenced and then exposed to a set of stressful environmental conditions. After the experiments are complete, DNA samples are taken from the surviving bacteria, run through the sequencing machines, and compared with that of their ancestors. From these experiments, the rate of change in bacteria DNA is objectively measured. From these experiments, predictions may be made and conclusions can be reached about if, or how far a certain trait might progress through several generations. The results are predictable and repeatable.
How can you honestly subject evolution to the scientific method and consider it anything more than a theory?
Consider that relativity and quantum mechanics are "nothing more than theories" too. A theory in scientific term does not mean exactly the same thing to the scientist that it does to the layman. When most people in these debates says theory, what they really mean to say is something more like "conjecture." To the scientist a theory is much more than conjecture, or even hypothesis.
Some of the people on this thread who are opposed to evolutionary theory clearly believe it is at best conjecture or at worst fraud. Often, evolution is dismissed as "only a theory." However, this is not only a misunderstanding of science, but it lessens other valuable scientific theories including the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics (upon which rests much of our technology of computers and electronics) and the theory of plate tectonics (upon which rests much of our sciences of geology and technology of oil exploration). Much of medical sciences rests directly on top of the theories of Charles Darwin and Gregor Medel. Without their contributions, it is unlikely that we would have the more recent contributions of scientists such as James Watson and Francis Crick.
Using forensics and dating on the fossils is scientific method. You don't just need experiments. That is a creationist lie.