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.
I think the distinction is that a supernatural created biology could look like anything. Therefore you cannot disprove such an explaination. Therefore you can't test it. And therefore it is not science. Also noone is suprised or impressed that the explaination is still around.
However the theory of evolution requires, by way of it's very mechanisms, that biology look a certain way. The theory of evolution only remains standing and is thought highly of, because the biological world does look that certain way that evolution requires.
No, it's just that it take a psychotic to seriously to maintain geocentrism as a description of reality. I assume you are playing a game with us.