Evolution is law in the scientific community's biology department, but in all honesty, how could something that doesn't exist in the natural world have any practical value in the scientific community?
The reason more scientists accept evolution over creation is because there's no evidence for the supernatural in their domain. Naturalism at least gives them something to work with, but they have yet to produce any evidence for macroevolution.
Err, you do realise that scientists don't just sit around making stuff up? The scientific method requires repeatable experiments, so lets have a look at some experiments that scientists have done to find out how evolution works.
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since February 24, 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations on February 14, 2010. [ 1 ]
Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.
For more information see http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/publicinterest.html
That is fascinating stuff, a twelve year experiment looking at something that doesn't exist or have any practical value according to AIW (remind me again, where have you published your work that disproves evolution? I would have thought that someone who had managed to disprove evolution would be pretty famous even outside of the scientific community.)
Since evolution doesn't happen (at least according to the world famous scientist AIW) I wonder what your thoughts are on the Nylon bug (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm) or the London underground mosquito (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157/) since obviously you must have some alternative explanation for the speciation of the above.
Presumably when AIW goes to the doctor she prefers creationist antibiotics, after all since evolution doesn't exist, bacteria don't adapt and evolve to become resistant to antibiotics? After all evolution has no value to science! So AIW, would you put your money where your mouth is and refuse modern antibiotics?
You are right on one thing, there is no room for the supernatural in science, unless you would prefer to fly in an aircraft where the wings are attached by magic? Perhaps the next TV you buy could use the latest development in pixie dust to create images? Or is it the case that when your money or health is on the line you suddenly like science to be factual?
In science there is no distinction between macro and micro evolution (since they are a creationist canard) so there is a wealth of evidence for what you call "macro" evolution.