It's no worse than what evolutionists accuse creationists of doing. Seems as though evolutionists are incapable of accepting the fact that someone can look at the same data and arrive at a different conclusion. Don't scientists even do that at times or are they ALWAYS in agreement?
This is a common criticism of the mainstream scientific conclusions made by creationists here on FR. Unfortunately it is completely uninformed as to the nature of the scientific process. The key thing about scientific theories is that they should make successful predictions about as-yet unobserved data-points. The theory of evolution has 150 years of success at that or scientists would abandon it. Predictions made by creation-science and ID, such as they are, invariably fall flat on their faces.
Actually, scientists are constantly at each others throats. Its very competitive, and actual errors of reasoning can result in endless humiliation. Factual errors are not rare, which is why major new ideas have to be confirmed by independent observations and multiple lines of evidence. It's a rather dense fabric, and you are not going to unravel any theory that's 150 years old. At best you will add some new threads.
Or, as with Newtonian laws, add a new border, enlarging the picture.