It's more likely that their theories just aren't good enough to withstand scrutiny, and that they fail to account for all of the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang which has accumulated over the years.
One of my main research areas is the rhetoric of science, and I often find myself in conflict with my peers, who believe in a "hegemony" of scientific elites deciding what counts as science and what doesn't. I prefer to focus on science as a cognitive process (my other main interest is cognitive rhetoric), which means taking into account the individual's practice of science, and not just the institutional and social dimensions. If the consensus in the scientific community is that a (scientific) theory is wrong, than the reason is probably because the theory IS wrong.
In my own field, I know of someone whose very solid work is regularly slammed
What is your field of work? I also noticed on your page that you live in Chicago; you wouldn't happen to knwo any of the scientists discussed in this article, would you?