You refuse to see the evidence in any other light except that which would bolster your theory. Hardly a scientific approach.
That's just backwards.
All new evidence is examined critically, even if it seems to reaffirm previous discoveries. That's what publishing is all about. That's what peer review is all about. That's the scientific method. That's also why, whenever somebody tries to sneak falsified evidence through, it gets caught and exposed. By scientists.
You'll need some evidence for this bizarre conspiracy theory. I don't think that you'll have any more luck with that than finding evidence for an intelligent designer.
ID by its very nature requires that we reject all the evidence we find. ID requires that we deny the vast evidence of the natural world in favor of supernatural explanations. That's why it's profoundly unscientific.
Evidence is evidence is evidence.
Unless you are the OJ jury. Which is exactly what creationists are. Ignoring obvious evidence (say, the fact that whales walked on land) because it conflicts with your agenda.
Is that how you wish to be characterized?!
I have a challenge for you.
I challenge you to investigate the evidence for the arteriodactyl to cetacean sequence. After you've done so, post a logical alternative to them being transitional. Don't forget to explain the shared diagnostic features, the movement and size change of features, the order of the strata in which the fossils were found, the change in environment that was evidenced in those same strata, the ability to utilize salt water as evidenced in their teeth, and the vestigial pelvis and legs in extant cetaceans.
This is a big challenge. Are you up to addressing it?