While the consensus is that CFCs cause the ozone hole, there is recent evidence that we don't understand it as well as we thought
When I first read the Rutan comments I though he had simply gone nuts in his general skeptical approach to scares (on Skeptics.se we should applaud his skeptical approach unless his evidence is nonsense), but then I uncovered some recent science that might give some grounds for his claim (though not the degree of certainty he expresses).
As far as I can tell the original source is from a Nature news story in 2007 which points out that some recent reevaluations of the reaction kinetics of some of the key reactions involved in ozone depletion had given radically different results to those used in the original models of ozone depletion. As one of the scientists reviewing the results said:
If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.
This view had widespread coverage in the press and blogs. But perhaps the most significant comment on a related topic was by James Lovelock and reported on this blog. Lovelock (intimately involved in the science as he invented the key method for detecting small amounts of things like CFCs) is commenting on the recently revealed Climategate emails and their implication of disreputable behaviour by some climate scientists:
We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
His comments are interesting as they suggest we reached consensus on the ozone hole a little quickly and, once the bandwagon was established a lot of poor science was done (which, despite being a believer in the consensus of global warming he also thinks is happening there).
More significantly his comments have been widely reported in climate-related blogs and might be read as arguing that CFCs didn't cause the hole. A more careful reading would be that though most experts think they did, we are no longer clear how.