The high credibility of the theory of evolution is maintained almost entirely because of it's huge number of believers; and it's huge number of believers are maintained almost entirely because of the theory's high credibility.
Exactly. And that high credibility comes from evidence from a great many fields of study - archaeology, paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, behavioral studies, medicine and history.
Based on my own experiences with evolutionists, I see very little critical thought being applied to the ideas of the theory.
Here's a list of research into evolution over just six months in ONE journal:
26 February 2014
A predictive fitness model for influenza
Marta Łuksza &
Michael Lässig
Nature 507, 57-61 doi:10.1038/nature13087
Species coexistence and the dynamics of phenotypic evolution in adaptive radiation
Joseph A. Tobias,
Charlie K. Cornwallis,
Elizabeth P. Derryberry,
Santiago Claramunt,
Robb T. Brumfield &
Nature 506, 359-363 doi:10.1038/nature12874
29 May 2014
Evolution sparks silence of the crickets
Katia Moskvitch
Nature News doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15323
23 April 2014
Origins and functional evolution of Y chromosomes across mammals
Diego Cortez,
Ray Marin,
Deborah Toledo-Flores,
Laure Froidevaux,
Angélica Liechti,
Nature 508, 488-493 doi:10.1038/nature13151
19 January 2014
Sequential evolution of bacterial morphology by co-option of a developmental regulator
Chao Jiang,
Pamela J. B. Brown,
Adrien Ducret &
Yves V. Brun
Nature 506, 489-493 doi:10.1038/nature12900
Human evolution: Fifty years after Homo habilis
Bernard Wood
Nature 508, 31-33 doi:10.1038/508031a
22 December 2013
Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments
Amy E. Zanne,
David C. Tank,
William K. Cornwell,
Jonathan M. Eastman,
Stephen A. Smith,
Nature 506, 89-92 doi:10.1038/nature12872
30 April 2014
Niche filling slows the diversification of Himalayan songbirds
Trevor D. Price,
Daniel M. Hooper,
Caitlyn D. Buchanan,
Ulf S. Johansson,
Nature 509, 222-225 doi:10.1038/nature13272
Why sharks have no bones
Brendan Borrell
Nature News doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14487
19 January 2014
The evolution of lncRNA repertoires and expression patterns in tetrapods
Anamaria Necsulea,
Magali Soumillon,
Maria Warnefors,
Angélica Liechti,
Tasman Daish,
Nature 505, 635-640 doi:10.1038/nature12943
11 June 2014
The genome of Eucalyptus grandis open
Alexander A. Myburg,
Dario Grattapaglia,
Gerald A. Tuskan,
Uffe Hellsten,
Richard D. Hayes,
Nature doi:10.1038/nature13308
8 January 2014
Elephant shark genome provides unique insights into gnathostome evolution
Byrappa Venkatesh,
Alison P. Lee,
Vydianathan Ravi,
Ashish K. Maurya,
Michelle M. Lian,
+ et al.
Nature 505, 174-179 doi:10.1038/nature12826
24 April 2014
Reprieve for men: Y chromosome is not vanishing
Josh Fischman
Nature News doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15103
16 February 2014
Study revives bird origin for 1918 flu pandemic
Hannah Hoag
Nature News doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14723
23 April 2014
Climate-change adaptation: Designer reefs
Amanda Mascarelli
In fact, critical thought seems to be discouraged due to the fact that critical thought itself can't be peer-reviewed before it is dared spoken by such an un-anointed person.
Sounds like you are saying that uneducated people are taken less seriously. That's true (in all fields, not just evolutionary biology.)
The problem I see is that the theory is so convoluted and diffused(sometimes purposefully I think), that it actually serves to conceal the big picture and it's own inconsistencies.
It is a very simple and elegant theory. The details, of course, are complicated (as the details always are.)
Also, much like the fragmented progression of most evolution/creation debates on these forums, no single point is ever really resolved.
A great many points have been resolved, and more are being resolved all the time.