[Lexinom]

I could set out with the assumption that the earth was made of cheese and interpret all data to support that theory, forming an entire discipline which would dictate all future interpretation. Datum not support the theory would be regarded as aberrant - i.e. I would question the data rather than the theory.

It was once believed that the universe existed as a smattering of bodies each contained in one of many concentric spheres (Ptolemy). Gallileo debunked this. People once embraced the "great chain of being." Likewise, evolution itself has undergone startling changes since the late 1700's (yes, late 1700's, not 1859; Darwin plagiarized much of his theory from his uncle Erasmus). At some point, very likely on the subcytological, evolution itself (which is studied pretty much exclusively with the anatomical level) will be fully debunked. The branches of science formed around this wrong theory, however, will perpetuate it no matter how false because their livlihoods depend on it.

[From many - one.]

I will address only the biggest error in your post...that evolution is studied primarily at the anatomic level.

Modern evolutionary study is primarily at the molecular level.