That seems a bit of a cop-out; I don’t feel any of my medical treatments have been worthy of consideration as direct observation of organic molecules, and if I didn’t feel less-than-universal observations supported universal claims, I would not feel any of the treatments I have had would indirectly establish my body to be made of organic molecules either (at best, they establish that whatever I am made of has, on certain occasions, reacted similarly to the way many organic molecules have on many occasions).
However, if it helps, I will reformulate the example (without any essential difference, of course): there is, in the yard right now, a chirping bird (not a raven, I’m afraid, but let that not deter us); as best I know, this particular bird has never been subject to medical treatment or injection or any more intense observation than a couple minutes of “Oh, there’s a bird in my way”. Certainly, I am unfamiliar with any previous experiment upon it. It is my steadfast contention that this bird, like all birds, possesses a heart, a brain, lungs, and so on; the reason I hold this is because I understand that every bird ever examined has been like so. However, I have never opened up this particular bird to actually check, and certainly the possibility exists that it is actually filled with candy instead. Do I have evidence for my contention, then? [And, if you consider the questions to be separate, let me also ask, do I have justification for making it/believing it?]
Well, alright, naturally, there is different phrasing when discussing particular cases and whole theories, as these are different things to talk about. My whole concern with science is as regards the discussion of scientific theories, so let us focus on that, rather than particular cases. Do we agree that scientific theories are unabashedly given as universal claims, then? Is it not also the case that scientists feel they have evidence for their theories?