There is no mention of Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest and physicist who first proposed the theory.
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expa...
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Bi...
> Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle, it was cosmic chutzpah of the worst kind: "The reason why scientists like the 'big bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis." In contrast, the Steady State model was the rightful heir to the Copernican principle. It combined the banality of space with humanity's mediocrity in time. Thanks to Hoyle, humanity had humility.
* https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_ag...
I tend to doubt most atheist scientist didn't accept the big bank because it was too close to genesis. However, in any case, it doesn't matter. That is one of the absolute strengths of science over religion. Scientific method explicitly takes human biases into account. Publishing, peer review, reproducability - all foundations of science. There are a lot of examples of the majority of scientists rejecting an idea. For example, the washing of the hands by doctors. Everyone rejected this, but in good time, it was accepted by all.
On the other hand, we have religion. It brooks no argument. There is no disagreeing or finding a different way to truth. People may do it, but the religion sure doesn't allow it, mostly.
> Hmm, I'd really like to know exactly who these atheists supposedly were. And what percentage of the atheist scientists they were. But I'm not going to buy the book in the slim hope that he will actually name these atheists.
You don't have to buy the book to get a name. One was provided in the quote you're responding to: Fred Hoyle. Looking at the relevant Wikipedia articles, Hermann Bondi is likely another.
I wouldn't be surprised if a similar motive isn't also behind a lot of multiverse theories, many of which are basically steady-state theories with any observable phenomenon pushed out of view.
Not impressive at all.
My two sisters is blond and like eating sushi, therefore all blond women like to eat sushi.
Where is the statistically significance in the study, and were are the data?
> It turns out that Lemaître, who had translated his paper himself, had left out certain findings because he preferred not to distract readers from Hubble’s results, which were based on more extensive data. In his supreme modesty, Lemaître was little interested in what history would think of him. He only wanted the most accurate estimates to be available—which he believed were Hubble’s, not his.
Alpher was a doctoral student of Gamow's.
To be fair, we can't expect a book review to be a comprehensive review article on a big topic.