Addressing the addendum in Tiktaalik's post.
And Evolution is not verifiable.
It has been on many levels. Of course, there always is more to discover. New discoveries still fit the theoretic predictions and enlighten rather than contesting the current knowledge. So did the discovery of the genetic code.
That is historical science. Traditional science cannot recreate what happened in the past.
That's an old creationist argument to minimize the fact that in science good inference is possible. It is all part of science, to observe, manage data, make and test hypotheses, build working models that can make practical predictions based on working hypotheses (scientific theories), improve the capacity to observe and measure (develop and improve senses way beyond common human perception). You have no better solution to discover what happened in the past. Modern interpretations of old prescientific human claims is not a viable alternative.
We can try and interpret the facts presented by the other science, observational science, but those are just interpretations, dependant on the viewer's worldview.
The above answered much of this in relation to "the viewer's view", that is way beyond the common sense of a single human. You can certainly use "interpretation" though. The scientific consensus is a consensus because it's the best interpretation possible. You cannot present a false balance between a mere opinion and scientific knowledge. When a truely better explanation will be discovered, it will likely still agree with well established knowledge while allowing to understand even better.
And to what the curator, Kirk Johnson, said, Evolutionists come to the facts with their own presuppositions, just like Creationists.
Another variant of the same argument defeated above.
Both groups do exactly the same thing
That's where you're completely mistaken.
just the Creationists' have, for the most part, the right presuppositions, whereas Evolutionists' presuppositions are wrong and are contrary to God.
Creationists don't even agree on doctrine because they have no reliable framework to work with. For the same reason, fundamentalist groups demonize eachother and claim to be the ones with "truth". It's all very subjective business. The scientific method is what allows a more honest investigation, it cares about actual evidence, not just claims and human traditions.
How can there be order in a random-chance world?
Evidence of ignorance of the theory, straw man, misrepresentation.
belief based on his wrong presuppositions and wishful thinking.
Psychological projection, science doesn't work that way and has other standards.
Creationists do not say that science contrary to our beliefs is bad science, we just question the scientist's interpretation of the facts.
Again confuses an individual person's opinion and the scientific consensus, false equivalence. But that's a main feature of this type of misleading ignorance propaganda: uncertainty propaganda.