The verifiability of theory

As many arguments against evolution claim that non-verifiability is the Achilles heal in the origin theory. Yet it seems to me they’re failing to understand there are other criteria used when determining the worth of an answer in abductive reasoning. For instance we apply Occam’s razor to figuratively slice away at answers that are overly complex, which introduce too many concepts that themselves require an explanation for. This is why we don’t say Angels fly in from Heaven and ransack a faithful soul’s house. Additionally the proposed theory, in our case evolution, must meet certain coherence with the established views. This is why when Lyell released Principle of Geology the accepted view of the Earths age became several million plus instead of a four millennia, Darwin thought of an explanation that accounted for those millions of years in the development of life on Earth. It also explained the most number of things, such as why there was diversity of species.

While the verifiability of the theory of evolution is slightly scant, especially since we do not have the ability to view the world over the course of centuries, we have enough evidence of the other natures, its simplicity, coherence with other accepted theories and its ability to answer a greater number of questions than its rival theories (including the so called intelligent design theory). It appears to me then that objections to this are not founded on any scientific principles, and that motivation has created poor science on the parts of opponents who clamor around trying to disprove not only the original theory of natural selection but also tries to undo Lyell’s Uniformitarianism since it objects to their world view. This seems incredibly absurd. Mind you there is recognition on my part that I’m allowing greater weight for science than religion, on the grounds that for the natural world it explains how things appear whereas religion is incapable of describing nature with the same degree of precision.