It's the former. The EU gang refuse to let anything like a lack of experimental evidence for their concept stand in their way of declaring everything about physics to be wrong.

Yep. The situation with the cosmological constant was ambiguous, so it's no surprise the Einstein turned out to be wrong in declaring it a mistake. The EU situation is different. They want to replace general relativity with their concept (it's not even a hypothesis) while ignoring the amazing accuracy with which GR matches many observations. My standard challange to EU types is to provide a description of the behavior of binary pulsars. The agreement between GR and the observation is astounding. Any alternative, such as the EU concept, must do at least as well before it can even be considered as viable. So far no one has done so.

Many take Pauli's comment as in my sig to indicate his opinion of ideas that cannot be tested. They are "not even wrong" because they make no predictions that can be used to prove them wrong. The EU concept certainly falls into this category. Of course, it also fulfills the more obvious interpretation. It's an idea that's so far out there that it bypassed wrong and went straight to ridiculous.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli