The questions in biology are much deeper than most people realize, even otherwise well-educated people. You have no idea how many scientists I've seen who have tried to use minor changes and/or some carefully-aligned sequence of fossils and thought it was a debate-ending argument. These people are clueless as to the extent of the debate, and sadly, most of it's due to willful misrepresentation which has in turn lead to a lot of confusion.
What you'll often see is people with questionable agendas trying to pigeonhole the answers into only two possible sides: Darwinian evolution, or Biblical creationism. There is no middle ground. You either believe that a primordial chemical soup magically came to life, before a series of beneficial, but entirely ateleological, mutations cobbled together the greatest engineering in the known universe, or you're a dreaded "creationist."
This is, of course, a load of ********. Unfortunately, many people -- students, teachers, scientists, etc. -- fall for it.
In reality, there are at least three crucial questions in play, each with possible answers that extend well beyond Darwinian evolution or Biblical creationism. These three questions are:
(i) The origin of life - how did life originate on Earth? (this is the single most important question, bar none)
(ii) The relatedness of life - to what extent is life related? (this delves into the question of common descent/design)
(iii) The causes (mechanisms, principles, forces, etc.) behind changes in life, and how they "stick" in populations.
The Darwinian explanation has failed. Every line of evidence has contradicted it, and no amount of ad hoc additions can save it from falsification. It's not "only a theory." It's not a theory, period. It's a failed hypothesis.
It's not surprising that it's failed so horrifically. After all, it was a product of ignorance, formulated and articulated in Victorian England, a full century before the rise of molecular biology. Imagine still holding to a foundational view of cosmology that was formulated before the invention of the telescope? You'd be a laughing stock. That's how I view Darwinists.
Darwin's views were accepted because they seemed right at the time (just as a flat Earth once seemed right), and because it used nature, itself, as the designer of life, which was a very comforting conclusion for a certain group of people.
In short, Darwinian evolution goes beyond science, and acts as a creation myth for certain people. These people have as much an emotional and personal attachment to their creation myth as any other group of people have to theirs, which is why this is such a heated debate. We're not talking about impersonal disagreements; we're talking about the very foundation of own existence. As Richard Dawkins put it:
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"
In challenging Darwin, a person is inherently challenging that "intellectual fulfillment," which is why Darwinists resort to name-calling, intimidation, suppression, dishonestly, institutionalized discrimination, and indoctrination. They don't want anyone challenging their creation myth, nor the intellectual fulfillment they derive from said myth.
I've rambled on a bit long here, so I'll stop now. I'll try to find the time to explain the details of why Darwin's theory has been such a massive failure, why there remains a so-called "consensus" (anyone familiar with the history of science, and in particular scientific revolutions, should already know the answer), and last, but certainly not least, my far superior 21st-century-evidence-supported ideas.
It's time to evolve beyond Darwin's ignorance, and the ignorance propagated by his supporters.