That pretty well sums it up. Evolution sis scientific regardless of whether it is the last and final description of its subject. Evolution could be completely wrong and still be the current best explanation for the available evidence.
This is how evolution deceives people. Leave out key qualifiers and pretend that 'current best explanation' implies some reliability. It doesn't.
In order to be correct, the qualifiers that should have were that it was the 'best' "naturalistic explanation", which is really all it is and doesn't really mean much. Intelligent design explanations are excluded 'a priori', but no evo will ever mention that up front.
Then you would be correct in saying it "could be completely wrong and still be the 'current best' explanation limited to naturalistic explanations".
I do like the way the qualifiers start flying when evos try to be 'accurate'. Those are generally missing at the start of a set of assertions for good reason. They would drastically reduce the impact of the assertions if you put all the 'maybes', 'possibles', 'coulds', 'a priori naturalistic-explanations only', etc at the front of the argument where they belong.
If you are looking at a supernaturally-created universe and biology and you limit your acceptable explanations to 'naturalistic methodologies only', you are *guaranteed* to get the wrong answer.
Since creation/naturalism is the basic question, those who limit acceptable explanations to 'naturalistic methodologies only' and then think those arguments are 'superior' are missing the point.
The circular reasoning takes place in the assumption that you can require a natural (read 'scientific') answer to a supernatural reality.
Not something that evolutionists typically understand or acknowledge.