No it is not the best explanation period, it is the only explanation they are prepared to concider.
Which as they are scientists shows that they are not as open or as fair minded as they claim.
Creation is a viable option, but because it involves God and God mean being responcible to him, they rule creation out as a non viable option.
you have established a conspiracy theory here, one that i remember from my church days, but honestly nothing could be further from the truth, and there is no "they" that seek to keep creationism occluded as this suggests. And at one time i wanted there to be, in the worst way, ok. There are many, many scientists challenging any theory, and the aspects of every theory, evolution included.
Pre-internet, i guess opps to suppress creationism prolly existed, but really even now, how do you prove that God twinkled His nose to make Adam? What path do you suggest that a scientist proceed upon, when the rib math does not add up, and your progeny are sometimes born with fur or a tail? Call the tail a "spinal extension" instead? lol, ok
Now, God twinkling His nose to make Adam, this certainly has less support, but you might see that assuming the creation account happened in a literal 6 days is just that, an assumption, and there is no reason it couldn't have taken a million or a billion years to make Adam from the Dust of the Earth, except that that does not fit with your preconceptions, right? i mean, do you have any other reason to believe that Adam got made instantaneously, or in 20 minutes or whatever, than the impressions provided you by some guy who seemed convinced himself, after he got them the same way?
And after you answer that, understand why it becomes a reasonable question to ask you if you ever gave this person any money, ok.