Of couse what you refer to is not the same as the religious faith being discussed - the trust in unverifiable dogma without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. This equivocation on "faith" is a common creationist trick.
What's the difference? No one has seen a meteor impact the earth, yet they fervently believe that it has happened, can happen again, and visualize the destruction it can cause. What is the difference? There is none. Its just that naturalists have tried to set up a monopoly on what the word 'faith' really means. Faith is faith. The only difference is there are instances of blind faith and an informed faith.
I doubt that you could name even ONE fraud where that was the agenda. And I doubt that you could come up with even half-a-dozen cases of genuine fraud. I suspect that your "numerous" frauds include many unsubstantiated allegations.
Archaeoraptor, the Law of Recapitulation, the false equine series, peppered moths, Piltdown Man, Ramipithecus, Nebraska Man, etc... These are deliberate cases of fraud to further their theory. I thought we are supposed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
It certainly is questionable. I doubt that you could come up with even one case of a fraud in evolution where the main purpose was to "further the cause of evolution".
What other purpose does it serve to acid treat both human and primate bones and splice them together like some sort of chimera and bury them in a rock quarry to be found by eminent proponents of evolution? What other purpose does that serve, if not to further the cause for evolution?
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt