Actually, most investigation within the life sciences *does* require accounting for evolution. I cannot imagine how I could have conducted my PhD research without considering evolutionary mechanisms--from cross-species comparisons of the genetic and protein structures of a central player within the pathway our lab studied, to the controls I would incorporate within my experiments to minimize the real-time effect of evolution on my experimental results, I just don't see how I could have been successful had I tried to pretend evolution isn't a major force in biology. Scientists don't just walk into a lab and "discover" things; they formulate a hypothesis as a guide for what to look for, and part of that hypothesis formulation in my field requires consideration of evolutionary mechanisms.
The evidence is quite underwhelming and rife with fraud, artistic license (pictures of morphing species) and subjective interpretation. The excuse will always be the same; we know the evidence is out there, we just need more funds and more time to find it.
If you have evidence of actual scientific fraud, please document it fully and report it to The Office of Research Integrity. Because scientific fraud undermines public confidence in science, it is a huge concern both to funding agencies and to the scientific community.
The fact that a scientist's results support and fit into evolutionary theory does not mean that the scientist is committing fraud.
Apparently, you had to account for micro-evolutionary, or what I prefer to call adaptive biological changes to provide some form of control for your experiment. Were you concerned the species under observation would change to another species? I don't think so. It might mutate, but it would still be a bacteria or whatever it was.
Your experiments prove neither evolution nor intelligent design, not that it was your intent. All I am saying is that your experiement considered known effects and the theoretical cause was not important since it was not your intent to prove that cause.
Things are “discovered” because people make observations or acquire existing knowledge and then ask questions. Without inquisitiveness, scientific discovery comes to a halt. It's one reason I find it objectionable to restrict scientific inquiry based on dogmatic beliefs, whether they are “accepted” or not. Evolutionist want to shut down any inquiry or discussion into the origin of species that does not conform to but one single criterion - there is no Creator, not stated as a theory, but as fact.