Insofar as it is good to understand truth about nature, science is good.
As stated, the methods of experimentation, measurement, analysis, consistency with data, and primary and secondary peer review, does indeed distinguish science from pseudoscience. YEC is absurd pseudoscience, because it rejects reality as found in nature.
Quit desecrating Mary Schweitzer’s work, you have been corrected before on this.
Schweitzer’s work was promptly publicized throughout the scientific media space. Her initial papers passed peer review and appeared in esteemed journals. The response varied from enthusiasm to skepticism, given that biologists are critical thinkers who do not ground their research on some uniform statement of faith. Her reports were groundbreaking, and she herself has stated that critical appraisal was entirely appropriate given the extraordinary findings. It is exactly due to such secondary peer review that scientific results eventually become established and we can be confident in their validity. She is heavily cited. She made professor, which is tough to get in paleontology, and has actively supervised graduate students. She is a recognized scientist whose lab continues to produce a steady stream of carefully documented research.