If the universe had a beginning, then it had a first cause. And if it had a first cause, then it makes sense to ask what kind of first cause is necessary to explain the origin of the universe. It must be:
A cause outside of the universe
Capable of generating all the matter and energy in the universe
Capable of generating all the order we see in inherent within the universe (more on this coming up).
That’s quite a job description — one that no known material cause or set of material causes appears capable of accomplishing. The need for such a powerful and intelligent first cause strongly suggests a purposeful design behind the origin of the universe. More.
The fact that the Big Bang supports design is the principle reason it is unpopular. That explains both the pettifogging arguments against it and the weird cosmologies, destructive to science, now promoted in order to avoid it.
But the biggest question today is whether evidence still matters the way it used to.
See also: Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train
The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.
As if the multiverse wasn’t bizarre enough …meet Many Worlds
But who needs reality-based thinking anyway? Not the new cosmologists
Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?