Ugh. No. No, no, no, no, no. It is perfectly valid to say a source is accurate in one respect but not another. Most sources are. That’s why both historians and journalists use multiples. Just because a source is right about one thing doesn’t mean it’s right about everything; and conversely just because a source contains one error doesn’t necessarily make it complete junk. (Although repeated, systematic errors usually do, and even then the mistakes themselves can be informative.)
Testing claims is just about the opposite of “departing from the science of history.” You know what’s departing from the science of history? Treating a single source as absolutely, inherently reliable in all matters and aspects.
Dr. Jay L. Wile, Exploring Creation With General Science (Anderson: Apologia Press, 2000), 131.