You don't get science. It will always require tweaking. It's never over.
When will you acknowledge that a model that supports evolution is the only one considered viable? Imagine a respectable scientist expressing their opinion that the evidence precludes the possibility of there being enough time for evolution to be possible.
Science community’s reaction:
BWHAHABWHAHAHABWHAHA!! Get off my grant.
Right now. Been saying it for years, actually. It's too late for anything else to be viable.
Yes that is the attitude of many. With that in mind, I will tweak that attitude and present a comment from Ted Holden.
As the Soviet academician Vsyesviatski (literally 'all-holy') noted somewhere around 1950 and as Velikovsky mentioned in "Earth in Upheaval" in 1955, there are three categories of phenomena, i.e. volcanos, earthquakes, and short-period comets, which have been damping exponentially since Roman times. In the case of short-period comets, the rate of attrition strongly suggests a common origin for all of them in some sort of a catastrophic event in our solar system within the last 6000 years, as Vsyesviatski noted.
The data seems consistent with the above hypothesis.
Sorry, wrong. At the turn of the last century, there were quite a few scientists arguing that there simply was not enough time for evolution to have occurred, and they got a respectful hearing.
The reason they got a respectful hearing was that they actually had a solid case (calculations showing that the Earth's internal heat would dissipate in 50 million years or so, and that the Sun's energy could only last about that long). Their arguments were defeated, not by the suppressive force of some sinister cabal, but by the discovery of nuclear energy.
Sanity 1; Creationism 0