General relativity was initially rejected by his peers and scientists thought that photon theory, light being made up of small particles was ludicrous. Which is why people make me smile when then demand to see peer review acceptance for every new idea.
Einstein's peer's rejection of his ideas was entirely appropriate. The number of people with crackpot "theories" far outnumber those with ideas backed by actual evidence. Your example does not demonstrate that people should be more accepting of ideas without evidence, it shows that even the most hard-headed scientists will yield to the evidence. Einstein's theories of relativity did away with our intuitions about space, time, and energy - his peers were right to provide resistance. When the predictions of his theory were confirmed time and again, they eventually fell into line. This is in contrast to the far more numerous instances of people presenting absurd ideas that meet resistance and are proven wrong. So, yes, demanding peer review definitely slows down the adoption of new ideas that turn out to be correct, but I'd rather have a slow process that works than a fast one that's wrong more than it's right.