This is a ridiculous collapsing of the sense of what people by "modal editing" into a homogeneous conceptual soup.
The core editing components of non-Evil emacs are direct manipulation, not modal. That there are modal aspects on top of that for doing things which practically/genuinely need a modal switch (command entry, search entry, etc) doesn't make the default emacs configuration a "modal editor" in any sense of which people actually apply those terms.
By your definition of modal, almost every application can be described this way. The point is not whether a system has modes, it's whether it makes its core emphasis and interaction modal.
You can see vi's motions as elegant and purposeful. I see them as an accident of history stemming from the poverty of the number of keys and capabilities of the dumb terminal it was designed on.
I encountered both editors in the late 80s and chose emacs precisely because it didn't have the "barely a step up from a teletype" interaction model that vi had.
As for Doom and Spacemacs without Evil.. yes... but why? Their original and state purpose was a packaging with a modal default. It's trivial to toss together your own init.el that brings in the same set of packages these days and with very little effort.
If the goal is an easy packaging of emacs with sensible defaults.. and then you have to go modify the defaults to make it what most people (yes, most) would consider sensible... No, that's not meeting the state use case.
