Also, the fact that some scientists disagree with details about how evolution may have occurred in no way means they are in disagreement about whether or not it did occur.
This can be a difficult concept for ex-cult members to wrap their head around as they are used to black-and-white, all-or-nothing answers handed down with absolute, unquestioned certainty and the kind of unity which exists only in cults. For example, JWs all "believe" that "the generation" Jesus spoke about is actually an "overlapping generation." There is no room for disagreement or questioning. To do so is to show disunity and apostatize. For true believers, any signs of disagreement are indicative of not having "the truth." So when they see, or hear, rumors that scientists are not in absolute agreement about how things work or how evolution happened, they mistakenly jump to the illogical conclusion that it didn't happen.
This of course is NOT how science works. Disagreements and discourse are signs of a healthy way of moving forward in our understanding of how things are and how they work.
Blind, unquestioning "unity" is evidence you're in a cult.
For anyone wanting to get a better idea of how science really works, I suggest you read Thomas Kuhn's landmark work: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
It's fairly accessible even for non-scientists as he examines how science has progressed over the centuries, abandoning incorrect understandings of our world and replacing them with better explanations. (One example is how Copernicus and later Galileo used then well known astronomical evidence to replace the problematic Ptolemaic geocentric explanation of "the universe" with a more accurate heliocentric model of our solar system).
One of my favorite parts of the book is when Kuhn examines the difficulty scientists can face when they have undeniable evidence that their current working model/explanation for a particular phenomenon has flaws, but they don't have a better hypothesis to replace it. The social dynamics of a scientific community can have striking similarities to a religious one when reality clashes with beliefs. The difference is that in a scientific community: questions are welcome, differing ideas and explanations are encouraged and progress is made by crafting explanations that fit the evidence and facts.
We all know (too well) what cults do in comparison: continue to try to force "the facts" to fit existing beliefs.