In my humble opinion, and I going to stretch out your agrument for a moment, everything we do today, including everything you do, is based on millenia of "evidence" and learning. Although I understand your concept (ie some theories may take us in the wrong direction and if we continue down that path, how do we correct ourselves), your suggestion of going back to the beginning is very complicated, and not realistic. Why is it unrealistic? because to go back to the beginning would undo thousands of years of your "evolution" of man.
Let's take math for a moment........start with numbers. When did man first learn to count?, then on to algebra, then geometry, then calculus, then diff eq. etc ..... Math has been around for thousands of years. Many of use believe math is a pure science. Meaning you can prove something mathematically and it's proof is independant of your local situation. Regardless, it is a part of your everyday life. you count change at starbucks with math. Cars are manufactured with differential equations, statistics, thermodynamics, etc. you rely on those concepts for your everyday life. How could you forget all of that learning and go backwards?
Same thing for Physics. Been around a while and is sort of a pure science and it is considered to be universal.. and physical laws are laws not to be violated.. right? ie once proven it's a fact. but it's proven based on knowledge gained in the past.
Point is this... things that are "discovered" are discovered with information gained in the past. We learn something and build on to it. and there are checks and balances along the way. If our discoveries are "proven" (via math for example), we scientists consider it a fact or a law of nature. if we can't prove it, but there is sufficient evidence to support the "finding", we call it a "theory". if new evidence contradicts the theory, we may modify or discard the theory or fact. And yes there is a scientific community who argues these issue....they look at supporting versus contradicting evidence. Happens all the time....
Here are a couple of real life examples. quantum mechanics and Einsteins theory of relativity. Newtonian mechanics claims energy levels are continuous. QM shows they are not. We scientists have modified our "science" or thought processes to use both mechanics.... Einsteins theory of relativity. Rocked the scientific world. example. Einstein showed that the "straight line" concept in geometry was incorrect. there are no straight lines in our world. Yet we scientists adopted our methods and practices to include Einsteins theory. String theory is perhaps a more direct analogy to what your asking for. String theory implies, through math, that our world is not 4 dimensions but is in fact 10 dimensions. or maybe more....
So you ask. Is the scientific process flawed? Which by the way is 1) collect information, 2) form hypothesis, 3) design experiment and collect data to test the hypothesis 4) analyze data, 5) intrepret data and repeat steps 2-5 as necessary 6) draw conclusions and publish results, 7) peer review. In a way it is flawed. it is based on our ability to collect and process information. And I hope that all researchers realize that and work very very hard to eliminate those flaws. But then again, it does work for us now doesn't it? Look around you at the things we humans have created....And by the way, we can improve the process by having more and better data.
Now if you've made it this far through my incoherent ramblings, then let's take your concept of "starting over" on. It is a purely philosophical cocept and is totally unrealistic. That is because the society we live in, the country we live in, even the planet we live on is based on business. The goal of all business is to expand and grow. starting over is the opposite. Going forward is the way of the world. Going backwards is impossible.
As to your "theory of evolution". Notice the word theory? that's because it is in fact a theory. An unproven theory. Same goes for the "theory of creation". and of course the theory of "intelligent creation" ie the mix of evolution and creationism. Suggesting to go "Back to the beginning" to find reasons to support or discredit that particular theory is, well, not practical
A couple of other things. I am a scientist, I hold a couple of dozen patents and I do review data in a non biased way all the time. To suggest otherwise means you are not familar with what "scientists" do. And to generalize and call all scientists close minded because we won't give up our "learned information and techiques" to prove your theory of evolution is both arrogant and extremely short sighted. No offense intended.