I was responding to the OP. The subject line does pose a question. A question invites a reply.
My statement represents the consensus view of professional scientists and and science educators. Ample evidence of this consensus may be seen on this board, but evidence also exists in public statements issued by professional science bodies. I should hardly need to point these out to any long-term residents of this board, but if a sampler is needed, sample this:
Reuters | Breaking International News & Views
The burden of proof is on the writer of the OP and anyone taking the same position. One must demonstrate--not just assume and ask others to assume--the writer's premises. I have no reason to believe before then that a substantial and 'growing number of scientists' are rejecting Darwin's theory of evolution.
It is also a tall order to suggest that evolution is irrelevant to the field of medicine, as the OP author also does. Medicine routinely deals with evolutionary issues: the rapid evolution of microbes, as we've seen, and the many evolutionary compromises that have resulted in the present structure of the human body.
It has been my privilege to count a number of medical professionals from many countries among my friends and colleagues. Some are religious (various world religions), some are not, but I haven't met one yet who didn't see, say, the human skeleton as a set of evolutionary compromises. No one thinks it's a structure designed from Day 1 for bipedal gait.
So, until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, I'm calling BS on the original post. The author is employing a well-worn fundy PR tactic: kick up sand yourself, then ask how if the science is so good there can be sand all over the place.
It's a silly game, really.