Interesting that you make this particular point. After reviewing your posts here, I have the strong impression you either are a flat-earther although you stopped short of actually stating this, or are at least agnostic on the subject. At the very least, you've hit on many of the same talking points brought up ad nauseam in flat-earth YouTube videos: science is religion and dogmatic; 8" per mi^2 drop; things being seen apparently from too far away, etc.
If you are, then I must applaud your bravado in posting in the forum for space.com, a science-communicating website which is undoubtedly antithetical to most flat-earth perspectives.
However, Bill Nye's standing as a scientifically literate persona notwithstanding, you stated that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory then the theory must be modified. Which is 100% correct. My question is, will you modify YOUR theory if there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary?
It's the simplest of empirical evidence; all you have to do is observe. Because on these very pages at Space.com are countless articles and hundreds of pictures of the earth from space and it is most definitely not flat. There are astronauts on orbit as we speak, and there have been hundreds of man-made satellites launched over the last 60 years, and all of them report the same. In addition, if you want to "see for yourself", there are plenty of articles explaining simple tests you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate the earth's sphericalness, and the distance and size of the moon or sun, and the size, altitude and velocity of the ISS, etc.
Flat-earth is not a valid scientific theory, as the earth is demonstrably not flat. Moreover, there is no "flat-earth theory" because none of the supposed solutions offered by flat-earth work in concert with one another; there is no one model which explains how we observe what we observe, because such a model physically contradicts itself.
So look, I know I'm poking a troll here. I'm not asking you to reply, as I know what your arguments against demonstrable empirical evidence will be, and they're all frankly ridiculous, untenable, and unscientific. All I ask is that you ask yourself if maybe your own biases, whatever they may be, might be keeping you from following your own dictum that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then the theory must be wrong.