I don’t see why scientists were dismayed; they ought to be overjoyed. I remember how they howled that the Big Bang could not possibly be correct after it was pointed out that the Big Bang actually lent a huge amount of credibility to Creationism. Of course, they have not found anything to replace it that makes a lick of sense, but they still opposed their pet theory after that epiphany.
RE: Of course, they have not found anything to replace it that makes a lick of sense, but they still opposed their pet theory after that epiphany.
Well, there is an alternative ( but not very popular view ) called Plasma Cosmology.
Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important if not dominant roles in the physics of the universe beyond the Solar System.
Some general concepts about plasma cosmology have been attributed to Hannes Alfvén, who was awarded the 1970 Nobel prize for inventing magnetohydrodynamics (MHD).
Alfvén proposed the use of plasma scaling to extrapolate the results of laboratory experiments and space plasma physics observations and scale them over many orders-of-magnitude up to the largest observable objects in the universe.
Plasma cosmology is rejected by astrophysicists and cosmologists because, as described by its proponents, it does not provide as well-matched an account of the observations of astrophysical and cosmological phenomena as the accepted astrophysical and cosmological theories do.
Funny, I don't remember any of that.
Seriously, scientists haven't abandoned the Big Bang Theory and they aren't worried that it gives credence to Creationism. There's more to Creationism than having a begining to the universe.