So far, there hasn't been any 'conflicting' data. There is no controversy in the scientific community.
"So far, there hasn't been any 'conflicting' data. There is no controversy in the scientific community."
These are two separate statements which have little to do with each other. And they both happen to be false. If by "no controversy" you mean "by ignoring the scientists we disagree with there is no controversy" then you are correct. Or if you say "because of the argument from the authority of the NAS there is no controversy" then you are correct. But to say "no controversy at all" is simply to ignore facts. There are well-published biologists who disagree.
As for the evidence, well, that's pretty clear. Even Dawkins says that biology is the study of things which have the appearance of being designed for a purpose. And, until he comes up with a mechanism that is SHOWN AND DEMONSTRATED to provide the complexity that these animals exhibit in complex organs and even cellular activities, then the obvious that everyone admits to has the weight of the evidence. If X appears to be Y, then it is up to those who disbelieve Y to offer proof, not the other way around. The reason we believe that, counter to appearance, that time is not absolute, is because it has been sufficiently, experimentally proven. Without such proof, requiring that everyone believe you just because you say so is authoritarian, not scientific.
Dembski and Behe have shown mathematically why evolution doesn't work. The only defence I've seen against Dembski's "Searching Large Spaces" paper is that evolution doesn't follow a mathematical model. And yet, supposedly, its just as proven as gravity! Oi vey, the scientific theory that refuses to be mathematically modelled trying to make claims against creationists.
Unfortunately, ever since Darwin, imagination has become the equivalent of proof in the biological community, provided that the imagination is pro-Darwinian.