"Evolution is science, and is based on "objective study of verifiable phenomena""
No, its not. Evolution is a theory of how organisms develop which postulates that one species can transform into another. Evolutionary scientists look for scientific data which seem to support their theory.
OTOH creationists look for scientific data which seem to support their theory - i.e. that all species were created as they are and that one species does not develop or arise from another one.
Because followers of both camps have an a priori commitment to their respective theories, both are guilty of ignoring data which conflict with their theories and both will interpret data in a manner which supports their theories.
It is the accumulation of the data which is the science, and it is the interpretation of the data which is theoretical. Because both theories relate to events that either happened in the distant past and/or take place over such extended spans of time that they are not observable, then they are both destined to be forever relegated to the realm of theory as opposed to fact.
You seem to have a very narrow view of science. According to your view, the laws of themodynamics are not science. After all, they rely on interpretation and not accumulation of data. Or do you honestly believe that it is possible to observe temperature or heat without making interpretations? All you can observe without interpretation is that the liquid level rises in the tube you claim to be using to measure the temperature. It is interpretation to say that there's some property called temperature that results in the rise of the liquid. Similarly, it's interpretation to say that there's some type of energy that is transferred from hot to cold bodies which we call heat. All you can observe without interpretation is that if you hold a long, liquid filled tube against a hot body, the liquid level rises and if you hold it against a cold body the liquid level falls. If you allow the two bodies to contact each other, then put the tube against them, the liquid level will be intermediate between the originally observed levels. Anything else is interpretation, and hence not science according to your view.
For that matter, where is the direct observation of God occurred?
Could you point me in the direction of this research? And what, exactly, would this data look like?