There are always factions at the cutting edge of any scientific theory, but try and find any substantive division among scientists about theories and findings that are more that 20 years old.
Issac Newton's theory of motion was the consensus for about 200 years, yet the consenus now is that the basis of his theory was 180 degrees dead wrong. Why consider any current theory any more "objective" than the one it replaced? Science has lots of consensus for short periods of time, theology has little consensus, but each group is generally consistent for long periods of time, especially when compared to science. I find I must object to the use of the word "objective" in connection with both camps. Nonetheless, the truth is out there. Pray for wisdom.
Oh pure BS! Newton's equations are quite sufficient to navigate our satellites and space probes. There is nothing at all in our everyday experience that can distinguish Newtonian physics from relativity.
If you are referring to some assumptions made by Newton you might have a case, but things still behave pretty much the way Newton described them.
Moving on to evolution: it may be proven that space goats from another galaxy designed our life forms, each and every one from scratch. But evolution still occurs under our noses, and strong varieties are still capable of interbreeding, as are closely related species. The difference between so-called microevolution, which we can observe, and so-called macroevolution, is a phantom.