Stephen Jay Gould used to like to tell the story about how back in the 1960s, students at his college staged a mass demonstration to protest a talk by a couple of quacks who believed in the "pseudoscience" of plate tectonics.  Gould was with them.  

Of course, now you'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist who doesn't believe in plate tectonics.  Gould says what made the difference was that someone finally came up with a mechanism.  

He used to use that as example of how scientists will come around, no matter how wild the idea is, if there is actual evidence.

sometimes finding a mechanism or an empirical "hook" is the only thing that can loosen a theory's "protective belt..." you know?
It was called Continental Drift back then, Plate Tectonics was what was happening and when the finally had an explanation for continental drift, the name for the explanation is how the anticontinental drifters managed to change sides without too much embarassment.
Scientists don't like assertions where "and here is where the miracle occurs" is someplace in them, but the continent outlines and the fossils and the rock magnetism said that something was there to be explained and we didn't have an explanation till then.
There was a similar problem in evaporite deposits. Until Snowball Earth there was no statistically meaningful way you could explain the anhydrite problem, and there were about a dozen others. Salt deposit explantations ranged from the statistically impossible to the absurd. But it's still the received wisdom in evaporites.