Possibly, but there is a lot of phenomena that is outside of the realm of science that we must assume is true from a scientific standpoint.
Consciousness being the biggie. They’ve tried all sorts of explanations that were not really explanations, like it’s an emergent property, etc., but all they can see is brain tissue that doesn’t do enough per se to cause all of the effects they observe.
So in my opinion, the Steady State (or Static State) is unworkable from a scientific viewpoint, and Robert Jastrow was on the money:
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
“Possibly, but there is a lot of phenomena that is outside of the realm of science that we must assume is true from a scientific standpoint.”
Sure, but naturalism is the primary assumption of naturalistic science. To assume “God caused the inflation” is a direct contradiction of naturalism. So if they assumed that, then they would have two basic contradictory assumptions, and would be building a house on a foundation of sand.