I wonder how this brief description of an individual truly bolstered your position. I happen to know Scully personally, and Sully is CERTAINLY no moron. Scully did not spend so many years in Grad School to be disingenuously called a moron.
Now back to your argument:
I looked at your (tiny) list of which most were before Darwin and only 7 total since 1900 and wondered, if the scientific community is truly jumping off the bandwagon as fast as you are implying, why did 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations submit an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court which opposed teaching Biblical literalism as science.
You might try reading the following two links prior to further argument:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6733_creation_or_evolution_12_7_2000.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
In Evolution -- the Fossils Say No! (1979, p. 171-72), Gish quotes Stephen J. Gould of Harvard: " little later he [Gould] states: `The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...´." What Dr. Gould actually wrote was, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly." (Natural History 86:22, 1977) This is but one example of the ICR’s routine use of out-of-context quotes to "support" their positions. Always check the original source! They also like to use outdated sources or papers later found to be in error.Say it ain't so! Gish abusing Gould? [Gee! Think that's where Sparky learned the trick?] Gish deliberately citing out-of-date sources?