Major organizations are very weary to fund research which could overturn previous research they've spent gobs of money on.
Do you mean wary?
Science thrives on finding out new things, and discovering we were wrong. Just the other day there was some big news about our understanding of the human evolution timeline being updated with new information - the genus Homo is older than we thought, by a few hundred thousand years.
If a scientist would discover something that shows other research to be wrong, they publish! Can you imagine if a scientist found credible evidence to show that our understanding of evolution was wrong - the money from Christians would pour in like crazy.
Much of historical science has become confirmation bias unfortunately.
And yet we constantly check to see if you're right. If we find a human fossil that's a bit older than previously thought, we update our information. If we discover a human ancestor (or a close relative of a human ancestor) like Ardipithecus ramidus that walked upright, had feet like chimps, but canine teeth closer to those of humans, we undate our knowledge.
You're accusing scientists of falling victim to confirmation bias - the whole point of the science process is to minimise various forms of bias as much as possible. Creation scientists have a huge bias - the assumption that a god exists and that god is capable of using magic to deceive us about the past, to make things look as if they are much older than they really are.
I see you're fond of using the term "historical science" a la Ken Ham. I'll quote Ken Ham's statement of faith page:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
That's a pretty huge bias, if you ask me. This is the opposite of science. It's assuming the conclusion and finding facts to fit the narrative, rather than gathering facts and determining the narrative from the facts. This cartoon illustrates my point.