Was the idea of common descent perverse the first time it was brought forward?

The only thing that is certain is that the scientific method's efficacy is unrivaled. Everything else is basically up for grabs. Theory, hypothesis, fact are all at least a little pliable, but generally Theory is an overarching idea that explains a bunch of facts and a hypothesis is a precursor to a theory.

However, its a little more subjective than that. The math of "String Theory" is so impressive it's practically been elevated to the status of theory, but in reality it is still just a hypothesis.

It is fair then to say a physical phenomenon is a fact if it is uncontroversial. Evolution is not at all controversial. In the USA, people think they are educated and at the same time deny evolution, but basically in the rest of the world, you cannot be considered educated unless you are educated enough to understand that evolution is uncontroversial.

So a lot of it is perspective. The fact of shared ERVs and their power to show ancestry is impossible for an educated person to deny and really is an aspect of evolution that can safely be considered perverse when people who understand ERV's then deny common ancestry.

For someone with a high school education to deny evolution it can only be described as a literal perversion of the educational system and it seems fit for calling it perverse.

In fact this is the very goal of "creation science" which could not ever have anything to do with science - to pervert science and education.