They specified their model with enough clarity that we can say with confidence it is conflict with the genetic evidence. Of course, it is in conflict with quite a bit more, but we can scope it there for now. I’d start by pointing out that it requires/predicts mutation rates orders of magnitude greater than what we observe.
Just stop with that. I’m not obligated to use your private definition of “consistent”. By your argument all scientific models are unscientific.
Unscientific is the wrong term. Try “extend beyond science”. We can agree that components of the theory are not science, but they are coherent with and informed by science. In that limited sense they are scientific, but they do extend beyond science.