not all scientists believe in ToE.
Pretty much every single biologist does, actually. There's really no debate about evolution among biologists, except in regards to its details. The last major debates about whether or not the evolutionary model was accurate were over in the 1800's, pretty much.
Evolution is essentially the unifying theory of all biology. You find the occasional crank who disputes it for crank reasons, and you find plenty of religious believers who combine scientific evolution with their personal beliefs about God, but there's no serious biologist who disputes the essential accuracy of evolution, because there's so much evidence that supports it.
If you watched the last installment of The Universe on Discovery in the first part of the show, the MIT professor even stated something to the effect that those who do not accept are generally looked at as nut-jobs.
Because they are. They're cranks. They don't have good arguments or any evidence for their views, and they certainly don't put forth anything for peer review. There's no conspiracy to silence evolution's critics beyond the universal tendency in science to ignore and marginalize people who defend views on the basis of no evidence. (Which is as it should be, don't you think? Science should only be open to those ideas that can be supported with evidence.)
Much of the same science that is done can point either way, its ones personal faith and belief that that drives those views when looking at the "facts" of the results.
That's just not true. Much of the science
doesn't point both ways. For instance, there's no creationist explanation for the phylogenetic convergence between
Geomyidae and Geomydoecus species. There really is no explanation for this pattern except for evolution, which is why it's accepted by scientists as the best explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth.