Peer-reviewed science have less than a hundred years of history.

Even today, Large scale experimental science seldom get review from outside their lab. (Because the lab literally hire every expert in that sub-field)

Calling something "not science" because it is not peer reviewed is just ignorant

The entire edifice of modern science is based on the bedrock of every result being reproducible. In fact it is supposedly the only way any discovery becomes acceptable. The fact that it's no longer considered necessary says more about the state of the industry then it does about the reliability of the scientists.

This misses the point. Peer review is just one of many processes that can be used to ensure that good science is more likely to have happened through intentional external analysis and critique. And the idea here is that forensics is not based on good science to begin with, not that lack of peer review is what makes it not good science, but that peer review might have been able to catch the falseness before it entered mainstream judicial use.

Peer reviewed studies have a roughly 50% replication rate… that’s not ver good either