That is: when scientist A finds anomalous results, it is expected -- and good science -- for scientists B, C, and D to find evidence for or against the anomalous results.
Sure, if scientists B, C, and D are as impartial as you imply. However, in practice when sacred dogma is being challenged by anomalous observations or experiments done by scientist A, well-funded scientists B, C, and D pop up to produce "evidence" to cast doubt on the anomalous finding. And for good measure, scientist A is subjected to character assessination. See for example what happened to Rusi Taleyarkhan. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/BubblegatePortal.shtml
In short: science is in part about persuasion, and the highest quality of evidence is (almost always) the most persuasive argument available.
You have too rosy a view of scientific practice. Scientific practice is also about perception, and the highest level of funding tends to determine what people can be made to believe. See for example how the anthropogenic global warming theory was pushed.
The scientific method is what grounds science in reality. The further scientific practice deviates from a pure exercise of the scientific method, the less faith one should put in the truthfulness of the models and theories produced thereby,
"Silly" is something you should justify if you expect to be taken seriously. Name-calling is the least persuasive argument available.
It is silly on multiple levels. For one, it is a complex addition to the BB model with weak theoretical and observational grounding. On the scale of the universe, quantum theory has not been tested experimentally. Applying it to the universe as a whole is therefore quite a leap of faith. Moreover, there is a lot of theoretical leeway in which you can. Also, it has not been possible to marry quantum theory to general relativity. This makes it likely that at least one of the two is wrong. So applying both at the same time is excessively risky.
You know that reading this sentence strictly, an obvious answer is "relative motion introduces a Doppler shift", right?
Looking at Arp's observations, the interpretation that high-redshift objects are being ejected from "foreground" galaxies seems inescapable. For a Doppler shift to explain that, the objects would always have to be ejected away from our line of sight at fair fraction of the speed of light. Utterly implausible. The redshift must have a different origin.
You seem to imply that when a majority of observations js in accordance with a theory, this somehow outweighs a minority of observations that are at odds with it. The scientific method is not about majority voting.
I understand that people like to have a viable alternative theory. However, I hope yo will agree that even without providing an alternative theory, it is perfectly valid to engage in falsification.