There are two possibilities -

1. There is something, and it has always existed. 2. There is something, and it once did not exist.

Either one is weird.

The author doesn't address this, and I feel, despite their sparkling credentials, that they should have.

Two downfalls of this approach that I see:

1. It increases the likelihood of believing things to be true, that are not actually known to be true

2. Since these things are not known to be true, it can increase societal polarization, because some others are able to see and elaborate that it is actually not known, and this can lead to "warring" tribes, who seem to often let isolated disagreements bleed into their behavior on unrelated matters, such as how they perceive others, or how they vote at the ballot box.

A lot of people seem concerned about the results of #2, but very few people seem to be interested (to put it nicely) in the underlying cause(s).

Conclusions like "It is not conclusively known one way or the other...but all things considered, <x> seems like the most reasonable estimate until we receive more data" are not only possible, but superior, in my opinion.