"According to your view, the laws of themodynamics are not science. After all, they rely on interpretation and not accumulation of data."
The interpretation arises from phenomena which are observable, repeatable and verifiable because they are phenomena which occur in the here and now in the same timeframe that the observer exists in.
We cannot travel back in time to observe the transition from a world without life to a world with life, or the point at which a new species appeared, and therefore all the evidence that we can ever hope to have will be circumstantial and will be left-overs from a timeframe which the observer can never be a part of.
Both "evolution" and "creation" are theories which relate to events which happened in a different timeframe than which the observer exists in. Consequently there is a fundamental difference to your citation of experiments which are consistently repeatable and verifiable.
You mean phenomena such as the development of resistance to antibiotics seen in bacterial colonies that are exposed to antibiotics? You mean phenomena such as all new fossil finds lining up correctly with the phylogentic tree derived from microbiological studies. You mean the phenomenon of DNA sequences observably, repeatably and verifiably lining up with what is predicted by evolution? You mean the observable, verifiable and repeatable pheomenon of speciation which has in fact been observed by multiple observers and has been verified? Just some of the observable, repeatable and verifiable observations that are evidence in favor of evolution.
Is there interpretation leading from these observations to the theory of evolution? Of course there is. However, there's nothing in science that forbids making interpretations. Just as I showed with my example, there are plenty of interpretations leading from the direct observations to the laws of thermodynamics. There are plenty of interpretations leading from observation even to something as well accepted as the law of gravity. For example, the law of gravity says more than just "things fall down." It says that ANY two bodies in the universe will attract each other, and it gives a formula for calculating this attractive force. Surely there must be some interpretation here. Otherwise please point me to the study in which a direct measurement of the attractive force between the star Sirius and the planet Uranus has been made. Surely its unscientific to just assume that the attraction would be given by Newton's law of gravity.