You see, we can reach many consensus's, for that is what I have been saying all along. (What is plural of consensus???)

We differ in how forcefully we acknowledge it.
I have seen the scientific method for evolution at work.

Sure, not all of it is like the following but large parts of it are.

They find a small spliter of bone.
They examine, draw it, model it and anything else they can do to preserve it.
They carbon date it.
They get a team of experts together and discuss/argue about what it might be part of.
They use its age and what they believe what sorts of animals would be possible
From all of this data that they have extracted from their knowledge (their mind) they reconstruct the bone that the splinter might have come from. From that bone they reconstruct the skeletal framework that the animal might have been based on. From the skeleton they reconstruct what the body of the animal would have been and the way it would have looked. Then they place it into an environment and show how it lived, what it ate, who its enemies were and even how it died.

Notice how my presentation changed from "might have" at the start to "would have" in the middle and then definite statements at the end. That's exactly how the documentary goes. It starts out with what might have been and ends up with what definitely was.

Granted, their guesses are educated guesses but I wonder how many of these educated guesses are based on similar previous reconstructions. Meanwhile, drawings of this animal make it into the public sector and get slotted into evolutionary chains and presented as proven fact when in reality it all comes fom a tiny tiny little fragment of bone.

Another group of scientist will take fossil evidence of two species that they suspect to be related via evolution. And they go through a similar exercise as the first.
They discuss the steps that might have occured in its evolution from one to the other.
They look at totally unrelated animals to see what parts of the skelleton they can use to get from one to the other.
They make drawings of the proposed evolutionary process
Finaly they reconstruct the animals that led from one to the other.

Again these drawings make it into the public sector and inserted into evolutionary chains and used as evidence.
It is totally overlooked that these are drawings because there is actually no real fossil evidence for those intermediate steps.
In my view evolution takes a relatively small base of hard core evidence
and fills in the vast plethora of missing links (more like gaping holes) with
supposition and imagination and then uses those "derived facts" as though they are real.

Open to interpretation? Now there's an understatement.
I'm am not trying to proove that its not true, to you.
If you choose to accept it that's fine I cannot say you are wrong.