Rosenhouse’s belief in the creative power of evolutionary processes is based not on hard data but on his faith in the philosophy of scientific materialism.
Unsatisfied with circular evolutionary arguments and lazy reasoning, Michael Behe decided to pose his question to the real-world data.
Fom the standpoint of empirical science, continued claims that the evidence for evolution is “incontrovertible” might be better termed one long bluff.
If you define homology as resulting from common ancestry, you can’t then turn around and use that as an argument for common ancestry.
Evans et al. (2021) seem to have been well aware of the circular reasoning in their argument.