No. To an experienced data analyst, it's blatantly obvious that he was picking among alternative data analyses to support whatever hypotheses he had, prior or not, and this is supported by Francis's statistical analysis, an analysis that Andrew Gelman criticized as being superfluous in light of what is so obvious to the naked eye.
Francis's statistical analysis may indicate something is amiss - thought I'm not sure how it could tell you exactly what was amiss - but I think it would need to be looked at carefully. It seems a bit ironic that it's essentially a matter of rejecting a psi hypothesis on the basis that the p value is less than 0.1! But on a more fundamental level, it rests on a statistical model of how psi might work. Perhaps the analysis is telling us something about that statistical model, rather than something about Daryl Bem?