I have no dog in that fight. I might agree, provisionally.
Without Question? Science should be deeply skeptical. GeoCentrism seemed undeniable in as much as it looked like the sun “rose” and “set” everyday. Then we learned otherwise.
They may argue that. I don’t view evolutionary theory however as real science compared to disciplines like classical electrodynamics and geomtric optics. I think it does a lot of pretending to be science.
Here is a simple example. I’ve asked around whether all major protein families share a common ancestor. The general answer I get is “NO”, hence there is no Protein Universal Common Ancestor (PUCA). By way of extension phylogenetic methods don’t explain origin of major architectural innovations of proteins, only variations within an architecture. Examples of major protein architectures I’ve studied are Zinc Finger proteins and Collagens for starters, of late Helicases and TopoIsomerases.
The failure of phylogenetic mehtods to account for major protein innovations without a common ancestor bring evolutionary theory in the uneneviable position of needing miracles to make universal common descent possible, and the first miracle universal common descent needs is abiogenesis to get common descent working. Evolutionary theory only pretends it is not invoking miracles.
For example, you can see somewhat visually the problem of invoking universal common descent from an ancetral protein in these two protein architectures:
vs
We could of course ask a professional evolutionary biologists to suggest an ancestral sequence for these two architectures. It’s doubtful a plausible ancestor will be found.