When Edwin Hubble first discovered that the Universe was expanding and all the galaxies (except those in our local cluster) were moving away from us, he found that distance was proportional to velocity. That is, those galaxies moving two times as fast from us as closer galaxies were twice as far away. If they were moving three times as fast, they were three times as far. This was all great – and correct – but there came a problem from this. And that problem can be seen in Hubble’s data.
Extrapolating from this data, the age of the Universe was about 1.7 or 1.8 billion years old. Whoops, right? Yes, but for an interesting reason. Hubble didn’t have a reliable light source to measure distance. He relied on the Doppler Effect to determine the speed at which the galaxies were moving, but he didn’t know how far they were in the first place. He had chosen a particular type of star for his measurements, but there were complications in knowing consistent luminosity due to the fact that the stars could be of different sizes. This video explains it all.
The point I want to make is that when Hubble’s calculations gave a wildly inaccurate age for the Universe – around the same time, we were coming to a conclusion as to the age of Earth at 4.6 billion years – it wasn’t based upon bad science. In fact, the scientific method worked wonderfully. The issue was with figuring out just what was needed to obtain more accurate observations. That is, the science was never weak – and, in fact, science never is weak – instead the problem was merely one of needing better evidence. Once we were able to find standard candles, we were able to better utilize Hubble’s observations. In essence, that is what science does. It relies upon interpreting observations according to a methodology; the reason why it changes is due to better observations, not a change in general methodology. Can religion say anything remotely similar?