Why is evolution so controversial?

A growing number?Tell you what. Let's do a little comparison. You count the number of scientists who reject evolution, have a degree in the biological sciences, and whose first name is Steve (or a derivation thereof, such as Estaban or Stephanie). I will do the same for the number of scientists who do accept evolution as the best explanation for biodiveristy in biology.Sould like a deal? Please, show us the peer reviewed papers where these claims are tested and supported.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then why use the argument that more and more scientists are rejecting neo-darwinism?

In car mechanic school, the students are not taught about stellar nucleosynthesis and how the iron in those engines came to be. Doctors are glorified car mechanics. They are taught enough about biology to allow them to fix humans. The scientists who do basic science research in biology are the ones that need to understand evolution, and they will tell you how it has a major impact in their studies.

Why did you say that?Can you even show that it is true? That is exactly what you are trying to imply, is it not?

Why did you say it? What point are you trying to make by claiming that scientists are abandoning neo-Darwinism?

What point are you trying to make by claiming that evolution is contentious?

What questions are they asking?Where are their peer reviewed papers?

Ernst Mayr said it best."Having reached the rare age of 100 years, I find myself in a unique position: I'm the last survivor of the golden age of the Evolutionary Synthesis. That status encourages me to present a personal account of what I experienced in the years (1920s to the 1950s) that were so crucial in the history of evolutionary biology. . .By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigmnor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."
Just a moment...The Evolutionary Synthesis is neo-Darwinism. Darwin didn't know about genetics or the mechanisms of heredity. However, the discovery of these mechanisms and the evidence they produced did not require a major rewrite of Darwin's theory, as Mayr confirms.

Show us their peer reviewed research papers. Show us what we are ignoring.

Yes. I am somewhere between an investigator and a technician. I only have a bachelors, but after many years of lab experience, there are a handful PhD's that rely on my expertise and guidance.I have attended scientific conferences, and have yet to see a single presentation or poster that challenges evolution, or that presents an alternative theory. I read lots of papers every month, and have yet to see any original, peer reviewed research paper that makes the claims you are trying to make.The only place where I see "scientists" abandoning neo-Darwinism is at the Discovery Center and other creationist political centers. As far as the science goes, there is nothing that we are ignoring since they produce none. What we do have is a political movement that is trying to remove evolution from classrooms because it conflicts with the religious beliefs of a narrow sect in christianity.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Peer reviewed papers?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Yes, and they do so because of their religious beliefs, not because of the scientific evidence.If you think I am wrong, then show us their peer reviewed scientific papers where they lay out the scientific case for their rejection.

And yet you can't cite those peer reviewed scientific papers. An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, especially when it is fueled by dogmatic religious beliefs. Is it any wonder why scientists don't take critics like yourself seriously?

That is an argument from incredulity."Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
Conclusion: Not-P."
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki Again with the argument from popularity.Those scientists do not reject neo-Darwinism because of scientific reasons, but for religious reasons.

You are not interested in the science. That much is true. Furthermore, you are about spreading a dogmatic religious belief that you call truth. You have made no attempt to support any of your claims with evidence, references to scientific research, or even surveys to find out if rejection of evolution is increasing as you claim. The last thing you appear to be interested in is the truth.