Or even on a less malign level, lets say, there are things such as "black holes" and "multi-verse" which many scientists, and dare I say MOST, accept as solid fact
Black holes, yeah. Multiverses no.
confuse evidence for proof.
In short, for intents and purposes of science it is grounded and fair enough to believe in the possibility, but i think they've stretched the conclusions a bit based on a handful of things that they go on to elaborate heavily with.
There is no shortness of evidence, I dunno... It's not as though we have a limited amount of evidence and kind of just think well "this is the way it could be" and call it a theory. That's just not the way it works.
Like, for instance, check this out:http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=observed+instances+of+speciation&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=observed+instances+of+speciation&fp=2e6e289080ce88e
And it's also not like scientists have a mountain of evidence and we conclude that it must be fact either. We don't call the theory of evolution a fact. We call the phenomena of evolution a fact because we are readily observing it, and it is a fact. And the theory of Abiogenesis, we have no better ideas for how life came to be, but we don't call it fact.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."