My problem is not what we can observe today or others observed. I have issue with the overconfidence in suppositions stated as settled science.
That term, "settled science", to the degree it's ever used accurately, only means we don't see other scientists actively working to falsify it.
It certainly doesn't mean that something is necessarily true, only that scientists themselves can't find a way, given today's data & tools, to prove it false.
Of course, "settled science" can be, and has been in the past, overturned as new data or ideas are applied.
However, no amount of eyes-closed hand-waving by anti-science religious believers will ever change "settled" to "unsettled" science.
Here's the bottom line: strictly speaking, no scientific theory is ever really "settled", it's only ever provisionally accepted, pending some new data or idea.
So I wouldn't get hung up on that term, because it only tells us about what scientists are now doing, not how valid the theory might prove to be, in the very long term.
Does that make sense?