For the three examples you've mentioned, can you tell me who the most vociferous opponents to these ideas would have been? Laypersons? Religious leaders? Other scientists?
There is an interesting
short essay on what would happen if there was a 90-degree shift in the position of continents. This is a radical version of what happens when there is a shift in the Earth's access - the reason why the Sahara as experienced the climate changes it has. Science ultimately can explain why meteorological phenomenon occur. That our current scientific knowledge can't predict with 100% certainty what will happen within a given timeframe does not discount current scientific theory. Nor does it discount theories of human effects on global climate change. If even a major geological event causes just incremental changes globally, what would make certain folks think human effects would be any less gradual?
Those wonderful critters living at the bottom of the ocean came from the Sun. All terrestrial life, and indeed the Earth itself, came from the Sun. Just because they don't rely on photosynthesis doesn't mean they don't originate from the Sun.
And you will find that scientists have theorized about the existence of life-sustaining planets for quite a long time, not just "a few years ago". In a galaxy of
several hundred billion stars, they considered it mathematically improbable that the Earth was one of a kind. They simply hadn't found them, because they didn't have the tools. What's interesting is that most of the criticism regarding life-sustaining exoplanets came not from other scientists, but from the religious community.