That’s what we wondered after seeing a story in the Telegraph offering “the top five arguments on either side of this monumental disagreement” over evolution. (Evolution, of course, is not a point of controversy or debate in the scientific community.) Apparently, Mark Henderson of The Times felt the same way:

It beggars belief that this list has appeared in a serious newspaper. It’s just the sort of thing that gets science reporting a bad name.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no serious scientific debate as to whether evolution has happened, as opposed to how, the arguments cited by the Telegraph, on both sides, are a mixture of the wrong, the misleading, and the irrelevant.
The very first entry is probably the worst:

“There is no evidence for evolution. There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils… Perhaps because of this, a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.”

There are a lot of scientists out there, and some of them are bound to believe strange things. But the idea that there’s a significant element of the scientific community that does not accept evolution is simply untrue. It’s no more a matter of serious academic debate than the existence of gravity.
The idea that there’s no evidence for evolution, however, is still more staggeringly wrong—and relying on the supposed absence of transitional fossils is just plain silly. Even the cleverer creationists out there have abandoned that one.