This goes back to the old 1st grade Columbus story. You know the one where Columbus thought the Earth was round, and the monarchs of Europe thought he was crazy. The truth was that everybody believed the Earth was round, but ironically Columbus was wrong in believing it was smaller than it was. Columbus was rejected at first because learned people thought his route to Asia was too long. They were right. What neither side knew was that there was a land mass in between, except for fisherman who kept the secret of their great spots across the Atlantic.
As for intelligent people in the Middle Ages. They had access to the writings of the ancient Greeks, since the ancient Greeks believed the Earth to be round, then they had the knowledge. I will concede that same as today, some intelligent people in Middle Ages believed in some flaky theories.
This is why I say that using scientific consensus to determine 'facts' is dangerous. What instead should said is that this is what is 'currently believed to be true' and whether or not it is believed we should act upon it.
Currently the consensus is that life 'evolved' from simple to complex. Yet that is challenged by scientific observation of locked life processes and molecules. That is that X, Y, Z and T have to occur in exactly the right sequence or Death or insufficiency happens. Or that exactly just the right amount of X is provided and used or the whole thing fails.
My belief is that the discovery and dependency of science on understanding these complexities will force the theory of evolution and consensus to be changed and/or abandoned.
The demands of an ever more complex technical world will demand it.