Yes, if you want to you can stretch the point that anything in all of science can be challenged. Then, you can suggest we don't know anything at all. However, I don't see value in that. Plus, to form such challenges, one has to bring sufficient evidence.
Science challenges everything. It is in its nature. No need for evidence. It is what we call the scientific method and it is at the foundation of everything science does. In this case the challenge arises from the invention of something that cannot be observed in order explain what we can observe. It is theory rather than settled science. It is ripe for challenge.