Absolutely, and that was my main point. If we have a link in our chain of arguments (in my example, spectroscopy) on which many subsequent links rely for their “proof” then the more ways we can validate the supporting link(s) the better.
But as you probably know, even entire systems of thought (Newtonian Physics for example) get brought back to early links in the chain when subsequent discoveries render those links invalid or at least weak.
One of the main things I hope to get out of this particular debate/discussion is that Science is not a substitute for Religion. One doesn’t believe in Science. One accepts that Science is based on not believing but in testing and continuing to expand the knowledge base, throwing out the trash when it accumulates. Even if that tossing out includes things that had been believed for centuries.