Honestly, I don't care about the politics of a theory, only the science. If anyone used it to justify creationism, they're doing science wrong. Plain and simple.Hey! hold on! I'm atheist. I was talking about that theory because it was defended by a catholic "scientist" who also used it to justify creationism.
My initial point is that many scientists (included atheists) bought the idea that the "universe" was created from a microscopic body, with no space-time precious to this event...it sounds like creationism to me.
But you make it sound like The Big Bang Theory is some sort of hoax that 'fooled' all the scientists... BBT, as Zora explained thoroughly, is incredibly supported by science. If someone believes that the BBT is the best explainable model for what we see, they aren't being 'fooled', they're a rational human being. Because BBT is nothing like creationism, and I can't see how you'd think that.
....Except that it's largely unscientific to declare stuff like this. See, we suggest that certain physical laws don't work in a black hole because our math fails. This might change if we develop new mathematics to deal with infinities and infinitesimals, but insofar, that's the stance. But we don't say anything about anything outside of the observable universe... because we haven't observed it. Saying anything about it would be unscientific. Saying that the area outside of the observable universe works different than inside that range is like proposing that a God might exist. It's technically possible, but without any way to verify or falsify it, it's worthless and unscientific.I am aware that our "visible universe" can be product of a more condensed state, my criticism is based on the fact of making "universe=known universe"
in the same way known physical laws may not work inside a black hole (even when IMO our knowledge is insufficient to explain effects of G forces out of our immediate planetary boundaries) they may not work in the non-visually-reachable universe.
It's great to stay open-minded about ideas, like m-theory, string theory, multiverse stuff, etc, but you can't actually say anything about it until it's testable and falsifiable. And it would be wrong to discredit The Big Bang Theory because there might be something outside of our knowledge that we can't see, just as it is wrong to discredit the Theory of Evolution because creationism might be true.
I'm not trying to antagonize anything, I'm just saying that when we talk of science, we must be scientific.