The BB as religion?

Tyson didn't say "turtles all the way down" but he gave us another origin myth.

Tyson's myth began in the 1920s as a tentative thought by Edwin Hubble, that the universe might be expanding. Georges LeMaitre wrote Hubble’s thought as mathematics, ran time backwards, and gave his church and fundamentalist xians support for the Genesis story. A well-established scientific theory it is not.

Later, Hubble refined his tentative thought. "If the red shifts are a Doppler shift . . . the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if the red shifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of the universe extended indefinitely in both space and time.” –Edwin Hubble, 1937 Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices.

I am having trouble here. The above statement makes sense to me, I read the book and think it is a great job on a topic that should take a tome to just scratch the surface. A great job by a person who is also a great teacher. I have seen him in several video pod casts, and his points have always seemed good to me. In stating that the above statement of anything from the mouth of Neil is like a religion is a statement that shows complete ignorance of the topic. I respectfully agree that what is written may sound like religion, in that it cannot be fact since there is no evidence of the concepts mentioned. Just because there is no evidence of something that is believed does not mean that what is being discussed is on the same level of understanding of any religion. Religion has as its proof, belief, no facts or concrete means to explain anything. The statement above is discussing a topic which was arrived at using logic, Mathematics and the Laws of Physics to predict an hypothesis. As a hypothesis proof still has to be found, until that proof is found the hypothesis is believe to be true for the sake of the scientific method. We may find that the big bang did not happen, we may find that it is the best way to think of what happened as it is what Math, Physics and logic tell us happened. At some time we may find our hypothesis is wrong. At that time we will have the basis for another hypothesis and we will us it until we can prove it is correct or not. Science is not religion and there is nothing that can bridge the concepts. As to Neil and his legal problems, I can find nothing that proves he had done anything wrong. He has been investigate by National Geographic and other sources and he is back on Star Talk. I would venture that the investigations undertaken on Neil did not find anything as they would not support him to have the issue blow up in their faces. Now if you do not want to like him or support him or just feel bad about him then so be it.

Or we might start with a recent comment elsewhere at agnostic com: The Big Bang is not a religion; it’s a well established legitimate scientific theory.