...when it comes to any suggestions of altering the method itself suddenly the scientific method is dogma and unalterable gospel.

That's correct. Doesn't mean that rejecting the scientific method will or should get you burned at the stake, just means that you shouldn't call it science unless it conforms to a proper definition of the term.
I saw a claim about the Earth's creation several years ago. It claimed that part of the Earth was God-created. He suddenly and abruptly brought it into being. Now, how do we explain the natural processes we see at work every day? The theory claimed that there was an abrupt, indiscernible changeover from the God-created parts of the Earth (Say, layers of sediment) to the naturally-formed parts.
Can we disprove the theory? No, because it explains why there is no discernible difference between the God-created parts of the Earth and the naturally-created parts. Is it science? No, because it doesn't use the scientific method and therefore cannot be verified. One can believe that it is true, no problem with that. But it's not science.