Among Scientists, How Broad is Concensus?

They have been saying this for decades and decades. They wish that evolution would finally be rejected but it isn't happening.However, taken all by itself, out of context I can make a case that the above statement is true!More and more scientists are interested in evolutionary processes and effects. So more and more scientists are studying it for one reason or another (even aircraft designers now).Evolution is a very complex phenomena. We do not have all the details sorted out and explained. So almost all scientists involved have "trouble" with it. In fact if they did not have "trouble" there would be nothing to do research on.However, the "trouble" is in the myriad details of how things have unfolded and tiny issues in the application of the theory (e.g., what is needed for speciation to occur, is there selection at the gene, individual, species or ecosystem level and so on). The "trouble" is not with the overall expression of the theory and certainly not with the fact that life on earth has evolved generally as described.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

Welcome to EvC Trev!You've crammed a bit much into one post. We are supposed to stay on a particular topic here. It is an easy mistake to make though; we all forget often.An important point is your claim that there is growing evidence for a young earth. You are right in thinking that if the earth is only a few thousand years old in reality then a lot of science is messed up (certainly not just biology).I suggest that you focus a bit and have a look at:
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1To suggest that the earth is young requires that you explain all the correlations there. Note: the correlations have to be explained as well as the individual facts. No young earth creationist has been able to touch this problem and you will find no websites that will help you.Good luck. We are all interested int he "growing" evidence for a young earth since no one has brought any of it here before.