the 1940s astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was one incensed atheist in regard to this model. He derisively referred to the theory as “The Big Bang.” The name stuck, but (to Hoyle’s dismay) without any irony at all.
Hoyle was angry because the theory first put forth by the Catholic priest LeMaître in the 1920s was VERY Theistic–unavoidably so. If there WAS a beginning, some kind of agent had to get things rolling. SOMEONE had to command, “Let there be light.”
And then there was the Doppler shift that supported it. Then the cosmic background radiation pretty much sealed the deal.
The Big bang is inherently Theistic (or at the very least Deistic). And Fred Hoyle very clearly saw that and objected. Even today, atheistic cosmologists just HATE the unavoidable implications of the theory. Hence the rash of “steady state” and “multiverse” and “many worlds” theories, whose main virtue is not requiring God, like “The Big Bang.”
Significantly, the standard model holds that all space, matter, energy, and time suddenly came into existence — from nothing — with the Big Bang. This means that whatever brought the Big Bang about is beyond space and time, immaterial [ed. I don’t think that necessarily is demanded], personal (this being made a decision to create), and unbelievably powerful. Of course, this is an excellent description of many of the attributes of God.
Science does not “disprove” God. Quite the opposite. And many legendary scientists of yesteryear (like Newton) were staunch theists. It was only at the beginning of the 1900s that “science” became synonymous with “atheist. But there is no logical reason that demands that–it’s all culture.
But after over the last 100 years or so, the pendulum is starting to swing back…