Your points are good - but nevertheless, the wheels of progress grind at the discretion of the reviewers. If Einstein had been backburnered (and surely he would have been) - then certainly he would have eventually been recognized. But in those passing years, all that dialogue among his peers would not necessarily have happened and where would science be today?
Einstein was not back burnered because his ideas were "in the air" and instantly recognized as important. Publication does not get you very far if the world isn't looking for what you have to say.
Mendel published.
You are simply wrong and are at the edge of paranoia regarding the likelihood that good ideas are being ignored. Even correct ideas are not useful unless they engage the system that evaluates them. The concept of a life force has been around in science for hundreds of years. It has no traction because it predicts nothing that can be tested. And the notion that synthetic life or computer simulations are not relevant because they are not "in nature" is simply stupid. Perhaps I misrepresent your concept. If so, feel free to correct me.