Probably true, but we should recognise the reason you wrote your article is probably the same thing that motivated those searching for evidence, so only that which supports the established view is accepted as evidence.

Why must it be one or another?

Why be blind to the possibility both are true?

A reason I can think of why, is that if it is ever accepted that there were, or are some kind of higher intelligence who already possess all of the knowledge we could know or seek, then what we discover is not truly ours to claim as ours, so would not be able to profit from by laying claim to and possessing.

In other words, science would have to find another way of funding itself than profit, if it was not able to continue colonialisation of information and knowledge as its main business model.

Most of us can’t imagine life without profit, so of course we never question its existence, and yet it is something we were warned against by most religions, as we were also warned against possession, and for the sanctity of life.

But now we can see its outcome, it takes precedence over life, leading to our extinction, and the extinction of most species, no less. We might further realise we have a vast hole in the knowledge needed as a species to survive, knowledge that should have accumulated by the process of evolution which you accept, had we not been driven by profit, now we have to ask if we are not too late to put things right without further intervention.

Seems still a very big question, as evidenced by your article, I would say.

Does it occur to you that we may be trying to imitate such a higher intelligence, if it were to exist, when we try to lay claim to its knowledge as if it was ours to claim, and by further setting our own rules over those it left for us, if it exists?

Evidently not.

We were warned about all of that too, if you accept the evidence left there.

Not leaving any possibility to understand it is probably the most stupid decision we could ever make as a species, I think.