[BikerNYC]

None of this tells us anything fundamental about lunar origin -- it's just a way to make (an approximate) moon, not THE way the moon was made.

What would you have the scientists do? It seems to me that they are attempting to create a coherent and consistent model of the moon's formation based upon the best evidence we have today. Might the model change in the future? Sure -- all scientific statements must allow for the possibility of change (unlike religious or philosophical statements). This appears, however, to be science's best effort to date based upon current evidence. I expect nothing more than that for good science. However, if you have a better model for the formation of the moon, I'm sure these scientists would be happy to hear about it.

[Cincinatus]

What would you have the scientists do?

I would have them not misrepresent computer model results as a "solution" to the problem of lunar origin. They're not and shouldn't be touted as such.