To make the discussion a little simpler, let me use the terms "true Christian" and "false Christian" to categorize those who follow the orthodox faith. I'll apply the same to the "scientists."
You make a reasonable point in asking for some consistency in the way we take the actions of a few false Christians or false scientists who self-profess to be "true Christians" or "true scientists," when true Christians or true scientists cringe at the approaches used by the false ones - we both know that their misappropriation of the names "Christian" or "scientist" will throw each entire category into disrepute and ridicule by those who seek to discount the truths posed by the other side.
In other words, as a true Christian, I have to have faith in "truth" itself, and I cannot be pleased when a false scientist presents information that purports to disprove evolution if the information itself is not true. I am not necessarily out to disprove evolution (or any other such doctrine or theory that I disgree with," I am out to promote the cause of truth. Attempting to support the cause of truth with the use of a lie is patently absurd and must (as it so often does) lead to deeper levels of absurdity.
Now, having said that, I find no greater comfort in the theories of evolution simply because 95-98% (your statistics) of reasonable-minded scientists believe them to be true. As a scientist (or even a student of history,) we can find too many instances when the commonly-held scientific belief represented the reality, the "truth" for most or all who studied the fact. Their "paradigm" was locked in by the conformity of everyone else who said it was true. Even when they conducted scientific observations or experiments, they also determined that the findings supported the theory. But then later, as science advanced, the theories we found to be completly false, even to the point of ridculousness. The hypotheses and experiments were obviously faulty, but not intentionally. Perhaps the measuring instruments were too primitive to discern finer details.
I remember reading as a kid that people generally believed the atom to be the smallest particle of matter. I read in history when people believed the cell to be the most basic form of life. We know now that these things aren't "true," because later scientists have found smaller particles of matter, smaller building blocks for life, etc.
But, never anywhere in the realm of science has the scientifically accepted "truth" (perhaps, as you posit, accepted by 95-98% of true scientists) for the origin of life been discovered, nor even anything that supports it as a hypothesis. That "life" sprang from "non-life." The, given trillions upon trillions of years, random connections and coincidences of various forms of matter could connect to create a self-perpetuating form of matter with the ability to self-repicate itself, to mutate, evolve, diverge, sustain itself, etc, and nothing in the scientfic realm has ever given any evidence.
Yes, we can see the rock record and debate about whether the earth is 6,000 years old or billions of years old. Yes, we can peer to the distant reaches of the galaxy and wonder whether (or how many) other planets like ours also formed, capable of that elusive "spark" of life that took hold and has led to something we would recognize as life.
To give what is probably a bad example from a scientific view point, let me ask: how many atoms are in all of the sea? Surely, with so many near-infinite opportunities for those hydrogen, sodium, oxygen, and other elemental components to come together over the billions of years, or even one year, somewhere, we would begin to see creatures arising from the sea on a regular basis. The number of opportunities for non-life (i.e., every atom in the entire earths supply of plain old sea water) to spawn life of some sort should surely have led to some new form of life. That's not to say we don't discover new forms of life, new species as we plumb the depths of the sea, but I don't think anyone is seriously thinking these were recently randomly formed from non-life, but why not? Don't the conditions of near infinite quantities of random interactions between non-life forms present SOME probability that a life-form would arise? That is the basis for all evolution-based explanations for the CREATION of life. So how many billions of random interactions between non-life forms will be required for life to spring forth? What "magical" necessary conditions would need to also be in place, and aren't the existance of these conditions equally random?
In other words, I find the scientific position in support of macro evolution to be completely disingenuous. You have to arbitrarily pick and choose which aspects of the theory apply in support of the outcome you want to believe (as scientists have done throughout the ages,) in order to discout those parts that don't fit the theory. You call this, "science," and I call it "faith." Faith in randomness. Your science seeks as non-God-driven force to the creation of life, which I see as a rational impossibility, and you see my God-driven force behind the creation of life as an irrational possibilty.
Nonetheless, in the modern public realm, I agree with your basic premise: we are no longer searching for the truth, but we are seeking ways to prove the other side is wrong, which does not illuminate the truth. I, as a true Christian, believe that the truth will prevail for one reason and one reason alone: because it is true.
Some portion ( I won't posit a ratio) of true scientists must surely acknowledge that although, for the moment, macro evolution as an explanation for the creation of life may in fact be the best hypothesis available today, we cannot call it "truth" in light of the overwhelming number of observable facts that support some other truth. We must acknowledge, at least the POSSIBILITY that the other side may be right.
Obviously, there cannot be two truths in opposition to one another. A true scientist would not be so quick as to jump to the conclusion that the other side's "hypothesis" (i.e., God created life) is "untrue" without adequate information to either prove their scientific point of view or to disprove the God-centered point of view. So, although I agree that we shouldn't assume the 95-98% of scientists are whackos, I must question why they do not apply a more objective approach to something that, in fact, has never been scientifically proven. All we have today is a limited body of evidence that, if one is predisposed to believe it (by faith,) points in the direction of "life arising from non-life," or, as I choose to believe it (by faith,) points to a reality that "In the beginning..." Genesis 1:1.