People generally regard science as a wonderful truth and a true scientific inquiry which has been construed in such a way as to explain the complexities of cosmological world with an engaging combination of clarity and wit. It seems most appropriate, but, it is absolutely-absolutely false. Science has fatal limitations - filled with uncertainty, skepticism and deliberation participate in a powerfully deductive dialectic that enables us to rework our present understanding of nature -- to step back from what we think we know, re-assess our preconceived notions, and bring forth newer, more fully formed views of our Universe. However, the scientific community as a whole is ignorant about it. While the modern science is surely incomplete - it is largely based on heuristic arguments and oversimplified models. It is strange that most brilliant and eloquent scientists are not raising the issues and the majority of the current scientific community is imbued with the dogmas of the academic club and the voice of dissent conveniently ignored or ridiculed, contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry.
Science means truth (what we now think the world is made of and how it got that way), and scientists (persons engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world) are proponents of the truth. But they are teaching incorrect ideas to children (upcoming scientists) in schools /colleges etc. -- largely with flair and in a highly approachable fashion. One who will raise the issue will face unprecedented initial criticism. Anyone can read the book and encompass a rapid trip in a more gentle fashion from Newton through relativity to the expanding universe, the big bang, black holes, wormholes and all the traditional menagerie of the modern cosmologist and find out the truth. It is open to everyone.
For lack of other theories, we forcibly adore the theories like the big bang, which posits that in the beginning of evolution all the observable galaxies and every speck of energy in the universe was jammed into a very tiny mathematically indefinable entity called the singularity (or the primeval atom named by the Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre, who was the first to investigate the origin of the universe that we now call the big bang). This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. It seems to be a good postulate that the anticipation of a mathematically indefinable entity by a scientific theory implies that the theory has ruled out. It would mean that the usual approach of science of building a scientific model could anticipate that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not prognosticate how it had a beginning. Between 1920s and 1940s there were several attempts, most notably by the British physicist Sir Fred Hoyle (a man who ironically spent almost his entire professional life trying to disprove the big bang theory) and his co-workers: Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold, to avoid the cosmic singularity in terms of an elegant model that supported the idea that as the universe expanded, new matter was continually created to keep the density constant on average. The universe didn’t have a beginning and it continues to exist eternally as it is today. This idea was initially given priority, but a mountain of inconsistencies with it began to appear in the mid 1960’s when observational discoveries apparently supported the evidence contrary to it. However, Hoyle and his supporters put forward increasingly contrived explanations of the observations. But the final blow to it came with the observational discovery of a faint background of microwaves (whose wavelength was close to the size of water molecules) throughout space in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, which was the “the final nail in the coffin of the big bang theory” i.e., the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (which could heat our food stuffs to only about 270 degrees Centigrade — 3 degrees above absolute zero, and not very useful for popping corn) in 1965 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the universe. Though Hoyle and Narlikar tried desperately, the steady state theory was abandoned.
“I found it very ugly that the field law of gravitation should be composed of two logically independent terms which are connected by addition. About the justification of such feelings concerning logical simplicity it is difficult to argue. I cannot help to feel it strongly and I am unable to believe that such an ugly thing should be realized in nature.”
--Albert Einstein, in a Sept.26, 1947, letter to Georges Lema