In polemic with the article of Arkadiusz Soltysiak and Tomasz Kozlowski published in this volume, questioning the reconstruction and identification of the skeletal remains of the Great Astronomer, it is believed that the authors have made their inferences unjustly. As not one of their assumptions can be accepted, their final conclusion cannot but be wrong. The argument presented by the authors is inappropriate. 1. The allegation that Nicolaus Copernicus could not have been buried in this spot because of the unexpected finding of a coffin of canon Gasiorowski in the trench is devoid of elementary logic; 2. The 'dental age' estimated by the authors cannot be accepted as it is based on a photo and applies methods developed for skeletal material, not taking into account the possibility of individual variability departing from the standard; 3. The reconstruction method is an established method of forensic identification. The negative verifications cited by the authors concern awkward attempts at its application, which has got nothing to do with the present case. In rejecting the results of the identification, the authors demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on the issue; 4. There is no certainty that the individual with skull 13/05 was actually Nicolas Copernicus. What we are saying is that the likelihood that it is he is very high. The article distinctly demonstrates ignorance of the biological principles of Man's intraspecies differentiation and political correctness on the part of the authors, who conceal the weakness of their argument behind an excessively scientific approach.