Ah, science-by-consensus.
There was a time when the prevailing explanation for combustion was the phlogiston theory. Those "scientists" had consensus too. They were also quick to ostracize colleagues who raised scientific objections to it -- just as they have attacked a biochemist like Behe or a molecular biologist like Denton in more recent times.
Something like two dozen scientists recently came to the defense of the Cobb County Board of Education during the textbook "sticker" hearings. They were credentialed in fields such as microbiology, biochemistry and biophysics. Brave people. I can only imagine the abuse and insult they've since endured from their "colleagues in consensus."
What I'd like to know is this: How is it that you're more qualified to render a scientific opinion on biological matters than they are? Aren't you straying a bit out of your area of expertise?
The consensus is the result of the scientific inquiry, just like the heliocentric solar system. The theory was not built by consensus, but by Darwin.
The goal of any investigation is for essentially everybody to agree because the correct idea has been found. Such is the case with the origin of species.