That's the same problem as before. Outside of maybe fundamentalist religious people who think their religious text is the final word on everything, everybody agrees that "science" is the best way of finding out the truth. The trouble is that they disagree on what counts as science (ie. which scientists/institutions/studies to trust). When the disagreement is at that level, casually invoking "science" misses the point entirely.

Even then, some fundamentalist have "science." Kent Ham being an example here.

Science doesn't care who does the science. It just takes time.

That might be true, but it's a non-sequitur because this thread is talking about the epistemic practices of a particular group. Whether "science" (the institution, method, or humanity in general) will eventually arrive at the truth is irrelevant.

Is it irrelevant? Did this group arrive at a scientifically validated set of conclusions? If not, move on.

Not really. Saying that relying on experts isn't needed is a common, self-deprecating thing scientists like to say, but it doesn't really work. Even Feynman wrote about having to deal with cranks who sent him letters in which the authors thought they had disproved relativity or something. Everybody's opinion isn't equal in science.