There are countless scientists who reject the THEORY of evolution, and/or contend with the scientific approach applied to how evolution has been determined both broadly and specifically.

Most scientists would agree the theory of evolution is a theory. A great theory, but a theory. Science by definition must be observable, measurable data. Although fossils are great, and carbon dating is fabulous, and we love ourselves a good trilobite, there is far too much information missing between each time period, each species, and each soil sample to conclude anything absolutely.

We can observe the color mutations and song pitch changes in a canary due to a deadly worm that kills off certain babies and not others, causing only the remaining adults to cross breed to preserve the species, when otherwise this would never have been possible.

We can observe how the emergent years of a cicada only occur on prime number years because of natural selection (avoiding certain predators and climates, etc.).

But over thousands and millions of years, we might get a cicada family that emerges on a staggering prime number year from its root family.

We might end up with fish that breathe and walk on land. Lizards that develop a special tint to protect themselves from the environment. Ants that know how to avoid the cordyceps fungus.

This is evolution, folks. Observable evolution. We can make a lot of conclusions and extrapolations from this, especially if we have transitions in fossil record.

What I am saying is, many scientists refute how many of these fossil records were established and notated, many more point out several holes in Darwin's philosophies, and more still contend with extrapolations drawn from information that is woefully lacking in the kind of detail ordinarily required to bolster a proper scientific investigation.

The current argument is not that evolutionists are wrong. It is that the theory of evolution cannot pass the stringent scientific markers that make it science. Meaning, it has to remain a theory until someone develops a time machine. Any other modern, peer-reviewed research article would be required to pass the same criteria if it were to receive accreditation on any level.

It doesn't mean we can't draw really logical, educated conclusions. It just means there may be a "Copernicus" aspect to it that we have yet to find out. I like to think we don't know EVERYTHING there is to know about how the world began, evolved, and was populated.