I wonder if your studies have encompassed visiting any university libraries. Visit one, and you will find literally tens of thousands of volumes and articles of data, experiments etc concerning evolution across numerous scientific disciplines.
Below in this post is the scientific evidence that supports separate creation of kinds:
...
[Sagebrush rolling]
...
Perhaps debate is stifled, in the same way that debate about the proposition that the earth is a hollow sphere that we are living on the inside of is stifled. If you want to overturn the central paradigm of biology then you need to bring substantial physical evidence to the table. The "creation of separate kinds" proposition is lacking this. I don't buy conspiracy theories in which the conspirators gain nothing, and have to co-operate in their tens of thousands for over 150 years.
I have. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, scientific journals and textbooks do not allow arguments for Creationism to be published, so the debate is rather one-sided. Have you researched the data, experiments and non-mainstream articles concerning Creationism?
As David Berlinski has pointed out,
“The term ‘Darwinism’ conveys the suggestion of a secular ideology, a global system of belief. So it does and so it surely is. Darwin’s theory has been variously used – by Darwinian biologists – to explain the development of a bipedal gait, the tendency to laugh when amused, obesity, anorexia nervosa, business negotiations, a preference for tropical landscapes, the evolutionary roots of political rhetoric, maternal love, infanticide, clan formation, marriage, divorce, certain comical sounds, funeral rites, the formation of regular verb forms, altruism, homosexuality, feminism, greed, romantic love, jealousy, warfare, monogamy, polygamy, adultery, the fact that men are pigs, recursion, sexual display, abstract art, and religious beliefs of every description.”
One of the problems with Darwinism is that it is assumed to be true (and it's assumed to be true because the alternative -- special creation by God -- is unacceptable for materialistic scientists), and based upon this assumption, a variety of conclusions are made about a variety of topics, as Berlinski has listed. The problem is that if the assumption is wrong, then pretty much all of these conclusions are wrong as well, and the great body of scientific literature you appeal to is far from infallible.