I can certainly understand your thoughts on this. It is a reasonable assumption. However, have you researched how the aforementioned ministries respond to this question? Many of us have and we have been amazed at how little serious thought they've given to questions like "Why do fossils appear in an orderly sequences in predictable strata?" Moreover, we notice that they rarely, if ever, test their hypotheses. (When I was a "creation science" enthusiast back in the 1960's, Young Earth Creationist speakers and authors constantly complained that they lacked the research grants and reliable funding which could allow them to extensively test their scientific hypotheses and to accumulate the quantities and qualities of data which could be published in academic journals. Half a century later there are many Christian organizations and institutions with enormous multi-million dollar annual budgets which are the envy of many scientists I know. Yet, have you noticed any scientific discoveries and paradigm-changing research projects published by ministries like AiG, ICR, or CMI? No, and for this sequential fossil strata topic they continue to cite the same vague, inconclusive, illogical, and poorly structured "studies" they referenced in the 1960's! I'll describe them shortly.)
One would think so. Yet, that is not at all the case!
I have the most experience with AiG so I will focus on their typical non-response to this particular question. The fossil sequence is a good example of a question which quickly got deleted at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter Facebook pages when a group of us experimented with posting such questions a few years ago. [We were all former Young Earth Creationists who happened to organize an informal SIG group one evening at a Denny's during an annual Evangelical Theological Society conference.] I can cite many other examples where the reaction to such a question was quite evasive if not also downright hostile. On the few occasions when we got any kind of direct answer, these were their declarations:
(1) Different kinds of animal corpses have different flotation properties. It just so happens that dinosaurs sink faster than the mammals we see today. Yes, that was their answer. On the rare occasions when there was an attempt to cite a source for this, they made vague reference to a lab experiment at Loma Linda experiment involving various dead animals and a water tank. Yet, nobody was ever able to find a published scientific paper or even an informal report about the alleged experiment on animal corpses.
(2) Different kinds of animals have different abilities to flee rising flood waters. (Yes, I guess that means that most flowering plants outran Triceratops and T rex.)
Do you consider these "confident" answers to be based on empirical evidence and the best of peer-reviewed scientific scholarship? I do not. Do you consider it credible science? I do not.
No wonder they are NOT confident of their answers and tend to delete such questions posed on their websites and even tend to ban those who insist on asking such questions.
OK. I can appreciate that. So it is always wise to investigate what the science academy has had to say about such hypotheses from AiG, ICR, and CMI. Peer-review is what keeps science on track and exposes flawed methodologies and illogical conclusions.
I would suggest that you are misapplying the context of "The first to tell his story seems right until another comes along." It's vocabulary and circumstance refers to what we would call a "courtroom situation" where the parties and witnesses disagree and tell of differing experiences and observations. It is not meant to apply to differences in opinion in general or, much less, to scientific disputes. (Yes, it is wise to always look for opposing opinions on all sorts of matters but that is unlikely to be what the author had in mind in that passage.)
I can't find the post at the moment but I recall you saying that someone here had referred to AiG, ICR, and CMI as "scientific kooks". I have not noticed anybody doing that on this thread but it is certainly possible that I missed such posts. Personally I don't think of those ministry people as "scientific kooks" because (1) I consider them my brethren in Christ and I try to avoid extreme labels, and (2) I find most of what they claim and do not at all "scientific". They don't subject their claims to falsification testing. They misuse and incorrectly define scientific terms. They use equivocation fallacies and far too many logic fallacies in general. They misrepresent scientific concepts and erroneously (even deceptively?) quote-mine the writings of scientists. They complain of unfair bias and missing out on research grants yet rarely if ever apply for them and rarely show any kind of familiarity with scientific methodologies and peer-review. (Answer in General started their own "scientific journal" and then declared: "Look! We do too publish in peer-reviewed journals!" Sadly, their "peer-reviewed journal" disallows any papers which fail to conform to their predetermined conclusions and doctrinal position. AiG's "science" must always agree with Ken Ham's personal views on every topic.)
My greatest concern about AiG, ICR, and CMI is that they do great damage to our witness for Christ and tend to confuse the public about the Bible in general and what it means to be a Christ-follower. I have lots of Christian brethren who find the scientific evidence for evolution and billions of years uncompelling---and that's fine. What concerns me far more is how AiG, ICR, and CMI misrepresent the evidence and the nature of science itself.