Actually, from what I've observed, its quite the opposite. For the most part, the evomaniacs on FR are NOT scientists and are unwilling to scientifically discuss uncertain fossil evidence and other inconsistencies within the body of evidence in support of evolution.
Sorry you feel that way. Most of the comprehensive posters here are quite scientific and have considerable legitimacy. The problem is that there are people here who quote scientific gibberish from creationist websites and don't like the fact that the gibberish is exposed for what it is. So far, there hasn't been any irreconcilable inconsistencies in evolution. Since it is aprocess that influences different adaptations in different ways, the specific mechanisms around a specific lineage will have vigorous scientif debate, but that does not invalidate the entire body of knowledge. That's the way every field in sceince operates.
Blanket and mostly incorrect ad hominem characterization.
We can't all be scientists specializing in every field. Some of us study one thing, some another.
I happen to have studied evolution (fossil man, human races, human osteology, etc.) for half my time in grad school. I do not practice in that particular specialty, but still remember a few of the details.
I eagerly await someone to present "uncertain fossil evidence and other inconsistencies within the body of evidence in support of evolution" on these threads but all we get is creationist website cut-and-paste nonsense (usually with no attribution).
I have yet to see somebody really discuss the fossil record with regard to actual problems. I had two seminars on problems in evolution, but nothing that was covered in those has ever been brought up here. Just the usual nonsense -- "You can't prove it, you weren't there!" and "How can you reconstruct all that from a toebone?"
Oh, and it does your scientific credibility no good to call scientists who study evolution "evomaniacs."