Science in general is very split on the Missoula flood theory and from my reading about the event it seems that this is mainly because Geology has moved on from

Science in general is very split on the Missoula flood theory and from my reading about the event it seems that this is mainly because Geology has moved on from Catastrophism to Uniformitarianism which doesn't really explain the event very well. Bretz who spent most of his career studying the region and originally introduced the theory of the Missoula flood suggested that there was only a single, catastrophic flood, but he eventually ended up settling for a possibility of multiple floods just to get his theory accepted after fighting with the Geological community for years and eventually moving away on to other work. He eventually received many high-ranking accolades for his work, but to his last day he was convinced that the flooding was a single event of very rapid melting of the glacial ice. Carlson sides with Bretz and suggests that there is compelling evidence that the flood itself lasted days not years. Honestly, this entire debate paints a very bad picture of modern Geology disregarding evidence because it challenges the status quo.