and even while i'm acknowledging new evidence, i would still cross-apply this from the comments section to that article, from a comment by eric deblackmere:

"if this were any other topic or area in any other field of science, this would never have passed for science. but when it comes to [insert theory] well, i'm sorry, but circumstantial evidence and a lot of people agreeing with each other does not equal good science. in cases like this, i am reminded of two important things that carl sagan said:

1) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2) being a genius is no guarantee against being dead wrong.

if there's one thing in all of this that is true, it's this: there is something about the way our universe operates that we haven't got right."