Sigh, when you make theories to fit your observations, of course they match.
And how, pray tell me, should we be making our theories, if not to fit our observations (facts and evidence)?
The problem is when people try to distort (or ignore) facts to fit their theories. Or when people aren't willing to revise or discard their theories when presented with new facts.
Doesn't make them any more correct
Of course it does. More than that, that is the exact definition of a theory being correct: matching the facts.
It is the the theory doesn't match the observations (facts and evidence) that it is incorrect, and needs to be revised or even discarded altogether. There is even the process where a theory gets revised so many times and it loses all credibility, even if not disproven in its entirety ("God of the gaps theory"), where you simply reverse the burden of proof and discard any validity based on preexistence and, since there is nothing to corroborate the theory, it goes the way of Russell's Teapot.
And no, if you run that backwards it doesn't work out that its all in the same place