Plate Tectonics wasn't always accepted without question. There was a time when some geologists were more than a trifle sceptical. A paper published in 1972 illustrates some of the problems inherent within the new theory – go to www.jstor.org/stable/30059314?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents … Objections to Continental Drift and PlateTectonics.pdf
In the 21st century of course nobody, at least very few geologists, dare to criticise the mainstream consensus theory of Plate Tectonics. Perhaps that is reason enough to have a closer look at it – and its major proponents. Prior to 170 million years ago there doesn't appear to have been a lot of plate movement. However, as the planet is 4 billion years of age this led to a computer driven model of repetitive formations of Pangaea and repetitive break-ups of Pangaea. Very handy if you are a computer geek as you can get to shifting around the globe various pieces of the crust. The fact the theory relies on modelling should actually ring alarm bells but it doesn't. Not only that Plate Tectonics has absorbed the dubious theory that rising levels of co2 are capable of causing runaway warming – and there are some similarities between Plate Tectonics and Climate Science (including some writers on both subjects).
At the moment the only alternative to the theory appears to be the expanding earth theory – which itself is fraught with problems. However, we might also ask ourselves why all the continental crust might heap up on one side of the planet with almost clear water on the other – which of course is a second theory (as we don't really know if the oceans were as big as they are now prior to the break-up of Pangaea). Plate Tectonics allows geologists to shut the box and carry on as if there was no problem, providing an explanation for various geological features (but requiring an acceptance of other features that are based on assumption rather than observation). It is worth looking at the way Plate Tectonics gets around the fact that the oldest parts of the sea floor only dates back 170 million years (the assumption is that sea floor prior to this has been subject to subduction and is now in the Mantle) – go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle. I don't understand why scientists (and archaeologists come to that) think they have to explain what they discover. Surely if they do not know how something works it should be left open on the table. Creating a leading theory is no more than a theory – it is not a fact (no matter how many geology students get to think it is a fact). If the issue was open other ideas could be explored, ideas that have never occurred to academics.