Not ALL of the scientific community agrees with evolutionary theory. The scientific community is what the people in power say it is. Real science does not inhibit open exploration and re-evalution of the evidence. Real science goes where the evidence takes it. Disallowing evidence (and there is plenty) that places doubt on evolutionary theory is not only unscientific but smacks of dogma.
Not all of the scientific community agree with anything. That is why we go with the consensus of scientists, which is the view of the vast majority. It is the best option.
The scientific community is what the people in power say it is.
The scientific community is composed of all the active scientists around the world.
Real science does not inhibit open exploration and re-evalution of the evidence. Real science goes where the evidence takes it.
And that is what biologists do.
Disallowing evidence (and there is plenty) that places doubt on evolutionary theory is not only unscientific but smacks of dogma.
Most of the cited evidence placing evolutionary theory in doubt is BS (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html). Which brings me to my next point - The people in the best position to evaluate what data supports evolution, and what data puts doubt on it are the experts in the field, not laymen that populate school boards and politics. Laymen will often tend to think they've found serious holes in evolution when in fact more knowledge of the subject would show such flaws are nothing of the sort. The old "if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys?" is a classic example. And "evolution is flawed because all major animal types appeared in the cambrian" another. Doubts based on ignorace are abundant. That is why the views of those who are least ignorant are so important.