> They should only be concerned with the here and now and future prediction
Anything that can help us figure out ways the past played out can help us understand the future. For example, if we see that many stars have likely gone supernova in the past, we can look at our own star, the sun, and figure out when or if it will go supernova as well. We can't test stars and supernovas because we don't have control over them, but studying those things means we will have a more accurate understanding of the topic than if we didn't.
Gathering data and making theories about that data is science. The scientific method with experiments is the most important signal and it trumps everything else, but when we lack the ability to do experiments then extrapolating what we know from those experiments is the next best thing and it is still science.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you are so anti-science here. Can you explain why you feel you need to put the big bang on the same level as "God did it"? Do you really think that those two things are on the same level here? The big bang comes from extrapolating what we know from experiments and applying it to the universe and then looking at what happens if we play that backwards. It is a very mundane thing.
Edit: An example that is similar to big bang:
You stand on an open field. You feel something hitting your head. You look down and see a ball. You turn around and see a person standing there, nobody else in sight. Do you think these two are the same level:
"God created the ball and dropped it on your head"
"The person you see had the ball and threw it at your head"
You would say "We can't know for sure which is true, they are equally valid beliefs!", right? If not, why do you think this is different?
Anything that can help us figure out ways the past played out can help us understand the future. For example, if we see that many stars have likely gone supernova in the past, we can look at our own star, the sun, and figure out when or if it will go supernova as well. We can't test stars and supernovas because we don't have control over them, but studying those things means we will have a more accurate understanding of the topic than if we didn't.
Gathering data and making theories about that data is science. The scientific method with experiments is the most important signal and it trumps everything else, but when we lack the ability to do experiments then extrapolating what we know from those experiments is the next best thing and it is still science.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you are so anti-science here. Can you explain why you feel you need to put the big bang on the same level as "God did it"? Do you really think that those two things are on the same level here? The big bang comes from extrapolating what we know from experiments and applying it to the universe and then looking at what happens if we play that backwards. It is a very mundane thing.
Edit: An example that is similar to big bang:
You stand on an open field. You feel something hitting your head. You look down and see a ball. You turn around and see a person standing there, nobody else in sight. Do you think these two are the same level:
"God created the ball and dropped it on your head"
"The person you see had the ball and threw it at your head"
You would say "We can't know for sure which is true, they are equally valid beliefs!", right? If not, why do you think this is different?