"it is not observational science, but philosophy, that leads such big bang advocates to claim that the universe has no center (and thus that it is homogenous and isotropic, the same everywhere and in every direction)."
As noted, the Bell Labs engineers found the microwave background that was a necessary consequence of the Big Bang and an isotropic universe.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space. It is an important source of data on the early universe because it is the oldest electromagnetic radiation in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background noise, or glow, almost isotropic, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The accidental discovery of the CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.
CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. Unlike the uncombined protons and electrons, these newly conceived atoms could not scatter the thermal radiation by Thomson scattering, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[3] Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling.
Tiny residual variations in the glow show a very specific pattern, as would be expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Right, I get that that's what people who reject Genesis interpret the CMB as. In other words, The person who wrote that assumed that the evidence is evidence for the Big Bang, and by doing so, assumed the truth of the position.
In other words, question begging.
But that's not all that's being addressed here. It's not JUST the CMB we're talking about.
First, if you continue reading on kgov.com/cmb (the link to the portion of the summary you quoted above), you'll find this immediately following:
| If however, the most expansive scientific observations ever made demonstrate that the universe has, in effect, a north and a south pole, aligned in an uncanny way with the Earth's orbit around the sun, then that would suggest that when God created the heavens and the Earth, that He put the Earth in a special place. Thus, atheistic cosmologists have coined the term Axis of Evil because in their upside down worldview, anything is evil if it is evidence against the big bang and for the God of the Bible. |
In other words, if evidence can be found that indicates that the earth IS in a special place, then that is evidence of special creation, not the Big bang.
The "Axis of Evil" is such evidence.
Second, you seem to have failed to read the rest of the part of the article I quoted, which has big names saying that the arguments are philosophy.
| Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Edwin Hubble, George Ellis, and so many other accomplished scientists admit that it is not observational science, but philosophy, that leads such big bang advocates to claim that the universe has no center (and thus that it is homogenous and isotropic, the same everywhere and in every direction). |
The kgov article then presents a link to their quotes,
http://kgov.com/cosmological-principle.
There, we can find quotes (and the sources to the specified quotes) such as:
George Ellis (quoting Stephen Hawking):
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations... For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds... What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” |
Stephen Hawking himself:
[scientists] "are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology"
"... it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no SCIENTIFIC evidence for, or against this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable [i.e. unexpected to materialists] if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe ..." |
Philip Gibbs:
"Despite the discovery of a great deal of structure in the distribution of the galaxies, most cosmologists still hold to the cosmological principle either for philosophical reasons or because it is a useful working hypothesis..." |
Marie-Noelle Celerier (regarding supernovae data explicitly
"ruling out the Cosmological Principle" [is a valid interpretation of the data] |
Richard Feynman:
"I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice... It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary … To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity." |
Edwin Hubble:
"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome..." [Regarding the possibility that] "the observer [is] in a unique position [this] unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution..." |
Other names include: John Barrow and Frank Tipler, Willem de Sitter, Georges Lemaître, Werner Heisenberg, and Lawrence Krauss.
Honorable mentions: Aron Ra, The League of Reason (forum).
Third, had you continued reading the article on the kgov site, you would have found a direct quote of Lawrence Krauss saying the following (emphasis added):
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong [RSR: That's extreme hyperbole; No operational science would be wrong, only the typical wild guesswork of origins science would be wrong] and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales."
Fourth, the evidence goes against the commonly accepted model, as stated on the Planck website:
"Planck data reveals the presence of subtle anomalies in the CMB pattern that might challenge the very foundations of cosmology."
Long story short: The evidence suggests that we are in a special place in the universe, regardless of what people believe about the CMB, which itself is evidence against, not for, the Big Bang.
And THAT, in turn, is evidence against the existence of aliens,
UFOs their ships, and the like.
