Yes, when scientists initially rejected the theory of continental drift, they were using the scientific process. The scientific process involves making observations, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and drawing conclusions based on the evidence. Although the theory of continental drift was initially proposed in the early 20th century by Alfred Wegener, it was not widely accepted at the time due to several reasons.

Lack of a viable explanation for the driving mechanism: Wegener's theory lacked a convincing explanation for the force that could move entire continents across the globe. The concept of plate tectonics, which provides a detailed explanation for the movement of lithospheric plates, had not yet been developed.

Insufficient supporting evidence: At the time, there was insufficient evidence to support the idea of continental drift. The theory primarily relied on similarities in the shapes of certain continents and the distribution of fossils, which were not considered conclusive enough. More substantial evidence, such as paleomagnetic data and seafloor spreading, emerged later to support the theory.

Alternative explanations: Alternative explanations for the observed similarities between continents were proposed. Some scientists suggested that land bridges might have connected the continents in the past, allowing for the dispersal of organisms. Others believed that the similarities could be attributed to the fragmentation of a supercontinent, but without detailed evidence, these ideas remained speculative.

It's important to note that the scientific process is not linear, and it involves ongoing refinement and revision of theories based on new evidence. The rejection of continental drift at the time was part of the iterative nature of science, where theories are challenged and reevaluated until sufficient evidence emerges to support or refute them.