How To REALLY Get Angry At Space Science Deniers

[Kulebron]

Hey guys, I was off the forum for quite some years, and just wandered by. This thread seemed too interesting to stay away.

I live in a scientific town, a modernist purpose-built town of ~80K people, many of whom have been scientists all their adult life. Well, the shape of our Academy and this local branch seems not so good considered that I hear these people making claims like:

- "Evolution has not been prooved, since there are no intermediate forms" (a historican)
- "All the history has been faked, and what we call ancient Rome did exist but 300 years ago not 2000" (a Mathematician. He wrote a book on that and has lots of believers!)
- "You must speak the good language, the examples of which are in 19th century literature", "these claims of so called new language are just an excuse to spoil the good normal language" (a catalysis chemist)
- "I'd write a managerial accounting system to ease the management process, but not basing on [double-entry] bookkeeping" (a programmer)
- "The fault of the Soviet economy does not at any bit refute the concept of state-run economy." (a plasma physicist)
- "In 1930s our economy was the strongest since we produced the most steel in the world" (a historican)
- "I think a lot of if I'm sincere with the god, and I find myself often guilty." (an elementary particle physicist PHd student) I just can't understand how you can merge science with this.

These are not old people gone crazy, most of then are/were either PHd students or actual scientists above middle age, and only one of them is religious. They all graduated from the same university, quite good one.

My problem with all this is that they so easily negate all the work done by the other department. Then they either hold on to an old myth, or switch the debate to slogans.

Another, more subtle way how people act in un-professional or un-scientific way is through local community. Everybody has an opinion on wild nature preservation, on traffic systems and congestions, on transit, on what and how should be built. Just on anything, and when you quote them some advices from experienced professionals, they go on like if nothing new has been said.

What's wrong here are 2 things: the very base of science is to doubt every clain and try to  debunk it before accepting. Second thing, if you argue what should be done, you need an adequate _theory_, right for the scale. (One green untrimmed lawn is nice, walking a mile at night in a city with overgrown bushes around is just dangerous, etc.) The third thing is humility: you must admit you don't know everything, nor can make correct advices.

So if scientists go wrong with the basics and act like ordinary people (emotionally and irrationally), no wonder other people do. The video in the beginning has really surprized me though.

[WinkAllKerb'']

and then , marmot put the chocolate in foil paper

Edited July 20, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''
alu(minium) <=> halu(cinations)

[Dobelong]

The video claims that all we know is an assumption, like all the maths and the moon landing, but while that at least has some proof, the "Spotlight Sun" has no proof at all. (Strange right?) and the flat earth society believes that if we were on a round earth, we would FALL OFF THE SIDE!  Also, the SpaceX conspiracy theorist never provided any evidence to why he thinks it can happen. All he said was, "This cannot be real. I don't believe it." That is the problem with the reasoning.

Similar to me saying THIS can't happen.

 

[p1t1o]

On 19/07/2016 at 8:38 PM, Kulebron said:

Hey guys, I was off the forum for quite some years, and just wandered by. This thread seemed too interesting to stay away.

I live in a scientific town, a modernist purpose-built town of ~80K people, many of whom have been scientists all their adult life. Well, the shape of our Academy and this local branch seems not so good considered that I hear these people making claims like:

- "Evolution has not been prooved, since there are no intermediate forms" (a historican)
- "All the history has been faked, and what we call ancient Rome did exist but 300 years ago not 2000" (a Mathematician. He wrote a book on that and has lots of believers!)
- "You must speak the good language, the examples of which are in 19th century literature", "these claims of so called new language are just an excuse to spoil the good normal language" (a catalysis chemist)
- "I'd write a managerial accounting system to ease the management process, but not basing on [double-entry] bookkeeping" (a programmer)
- "The fault of the Soviet economy does not at any bit refute the concept of state-run economy." (a plasma physicist)
- "In 1930s our economy was the strongest since we produced the most steel in the world" (a historican)
- "I think a lot of if I'm sincere with the god, and I find myself often guilty." (an elementary particle physicist PHd student) I just can't understand how you can merge science with this.

These are not old people gone crazy, most of then are/were either PHd students or actual scientists above middle age, and only one of them is religious. They all graduated from the same university, quite good one.

My problem with all this is that they so easily negate all the work done by the other department. Then they either hold on to an old myth, or switch the debate to slogans.

Another, more subtle way how people act in un-professional or un-scientific way is through local community. Everybody has an opinion on wild nature preservation, on traffic systems and congestions, on transit, on what and how should be built. Just on anything, and when you quote them some advices from experienced professionals, they go on like if nothing new has been said.

What's wrong here are 2 things: the very base of science is to doubt every clain and try to  debunk it before accepting. Second thing, if you argue what should be done, you need an adequate _theory_, right for the scale. (One green untrimmed lawn is nice, walking a mile at night in a city with overgrown bushes around is just dangerous, etc.) The third thing is humility: you must admit you don't know everything, nor can make correct advices.

So if scientists go wrong with the basics and act like ordinary people (emotionally and irrationally), no wonder other people do. The video in the beginning has really surprized me though.

Humans, even scientists, are not naturally cold, logical knowledge machines. Even a scientist who has spent his whole life in the pursuit of knowledge can be ignorant outside of their field. And there is the instinctive resistance to changing our point of view, if we are already comfortable with it, faced only with verbal proof of something better.

Example 1: My father is a pretty accomplished chemical engineer who now runs a university department teaching a PhD course which merges design, fashion and material science. However, I have on more than one occasion heard him express doubt that the Moon landings were real.

Example 2: You ever get a graze or cut that required a plaster? Did you sometimes take the plaster off to let the wound "breathe"? The prevailing medical science supports "moist wound healing" wherein a dressing is kept on at all times (amongst finer details). This knowledge I picked up whilst working R&D in consumer wound care. We would run consumer studies to find out how best to tell people on packaging that you shouldnt remove these dressings for them to work best.

No matter how we expressed the faster healing rates, reduction in scarring and much reduced chances of infection, people would nod and agree with you till they were blue in the face - And almost without exception, would go home and immediately remove their dressing. It was impossible to sell "moist" over "breathe" no matter what rationale, what pretty diagrams or solid, multiple clinical data we had.

Edited July 26, 2016 by p1t1o

[Dobelong]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 7:10 PM, razark said:

Because gravity is a lie.
The disk Earth is accelerating upwards at 32 feet/sec^2, which causes the appearance that gravity exists and pulls things down.

(Yes, I have seen this "theory" in the wild.)

So the earth moves up onto US right?

MEANWHILE IN FLAT EARTH WEBSITE 1980s

"Objects, (Including earth) cannot be moving, as there is the ether that light travels through, which would produce drag.

So earth is still right?  And there is drag so objects can't keep on moving correct?

ALSO MEANWHILE

The moon, and sun, along with all of the universe, moves around the earth.

What about the drag caused by the ether? Isn't that what stops the earth?  

FACT: Flat earthers still haven't studied the theory of relativity yet. (To be fair, I haven't either, I think it is relative velocity compared to spacetime and other objects)

In addition, they are still using pre-Newtonian physics. All else is fake because it disproves them. Although all the primary physicists have evidence behind them, they are still "full of holes" That is, if you knock out a few unimportant aspects like GRAVITY and RELATIVITY. THEN, ether seems reasonable, and earth can be flat.

Also better to know that the flat earth theory was formerly "The system" to US, and we were the minority. Now, roles have switched. Truths can change with gain of knowledge.

Then again, some flat-earthers are actually trolls who do know that earth is round, so the best thing to do is chill and play some KSP.

 

[NSEP]

People who say we havent been to space mostly say ''Have you been to space before? If you dont, then how can you confirm it!''. Thats absolutely garbage. That also mean Canada does not exist. My friends have never been there, wich means nobody i can confirm Canada exist, so it just does not. And flat-earthers totally forget about rocket-science, the easy mechanics that make alot of sense. I once heard a flat-earth boi say. ''The fastest way to go to space is to go up, not go sideways in an arc!'' Wich is absolutely stupid. Everybody who denies space exploration should play KSP. I once did not believe Apollo 11 happend, but after i stuffed some KSP in my brain, i changed my mind.

[razark]

11 minutes ago, NSEP said:

''The fastest way to go to space is to go up, not go sideways in an arc!''

Well, that is the quickest way to get there.

Just not a very good strategy for staying there.

[Slam_Jones]

17 minutes ago, NSEP said:

-snip-

I once heard a flat-earth boi say. ''The fastest way to go to space is to go up, not go sideways in an arc!'' Wich is absolutely stupid. Everybody who denies space exploration should play KSP. I once did not believe Apollo 11 happend, but after i stuffed some KSP in my brain, i changed my mind.

Well, technically, he's not wrong...  you'll get to space quicker, sure, but you won't achieve orbit that way.

Then again, Flat-Earthers probably think the two terms are interchangeable.   

(Ninja'd, apparently)

Edited July 26, 2016 by Slam_Jones

[NSEP]

Just now, Slam_Jones said:

Well, technically, he's not wrong.  You'll get to space quicker sure, but you won't achieve orbit that way.

Then again, Flat-Earthers probably think the two terms are interchangeable. 

 

1 minute ago, razark said:

Well, that is the quickest way to get there.

Just not a very good strategy for staying there.

Thats right bois. He also was looking at a launch of the Soyuz/Progress. Wich is supposed to go on a rendez-vous and docking with the ISS, wich was in orbit. The bois name was Crow777 on YouTube. He makes videos about ''lunar waves'' wich is totally his camera its average weird things.

 

This is the video, watch at 1:38 to cringe out your brains. Brace youself peeps!

[Dobelong]

On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 5:43 PM, NSEP said:

People who say we havent been to space mostly say ''Have you been to space before? If you dont, then how can you confirm it!''. Thats absolutely garbage. That also mean Canada does not exist. My friends have never been there, wich means nobody i can confirm Canada exist, so it just does not. And flat-earthers totally forget about rocket-science, the easy mechanics that make alot of sense. I once heard a flat-earth boi say. ''The fastest way to go to space is to go up, not go sideways in an arc!'' Wich is absolutely stupid. Everybody who denies space exploration should play KSP. I once did not believe Apollo 11 happend, but after i stuffed some KSP in my brain, I changed my mind.

Conspiracy theorist: DONT YOU SEE? IT"S ALL ABOUT DA BALL EARTH! THEY ARE MAKING GAMES TO FLASELY TEACH YOU ABOUT DA BALL EARTH! 

Conspiracy theorists don't know anything about what they think is physics, so they think it is ridiculous. They may know less than I knew about space when I was about 10. They don't know that rockets need multiple stages to orbit, or what gravity is. They probably think that gravity stops at space, and this orbit stuff is SNAKE OIL THEORY ABOUT DA BALL EARTH ITS ALL A BUNCH OF PYTHONS

Their knowledge of physics is that of a kid cartoon...

This is what most flat-earthers or space program fakers think a TRUE rocket looks like...

Edited July 28, 2016 by Dobelong

[NSEP]

You get the point @Dobelong. They dont know physics or science. I grew up in schools were teachers barely teach physics. But then i found out about the internet, and i became interested in rocket science. This also destroys the internet makes you dumb theory.

[p1t1o]

7 minutes ago, NSEP said:

You get the point @Dobelong. They dont know physics or science. I grew up in schools were teachers barely teach physics. But then i found out about the internet, and i became interested in rocket science. This also destroys the internet makes you dumb theory.

It doesnt make you dumb, but it doesn't make you clever either - if you are interested in staying dumb, it will help you out just as much as those who want to get smarter. Hence all the flat-earth-creationist-moon-hoaxer-holocaust-denier-lizard-people-thule-society-melting-steel-beams freaks find each other and commence the great global circle-jerk whilst uttering their warcry "Doo summ reeserch sheeple! FACT!".

[Green Baron]

The Internet is nice for looking up formulas or dates, facts that are difficult to distort or discuss. It also serves well for looking up information that you can sort out being correct or not, for example things you once learned but have forgotten.

But if it's soft information that you can't judge yourself you are very likely to be mislead and falsely informed by wikis, news-magazines or other popular pages calling themselves sciency. That can be intentional through crews being paid for typing in "information" (aka propaganda, sense of mission or just influencing the public), persons feeling an urge to school others or as a condoned side-effect of news-magazines that use "information" as a means to transport advertisement (aka making money).

For real research on a complex topic (like natural history, cosmology, evolution) there is no other way than study, or if you don't have the time then at least rely on trustworthy repositories, journals in which papers are peer reviewed (they cost ...), books published by professors or informed journalists (cost a little). It's not as easy as clicking a wiki-page but in the end the time is spent more reasonable.

Edit: talking old again. I don't mean that personal :-)

 

Edited July 28, 2016 by Green Baron

[Green Baron]

On 19.7.2016 at 8:38 PM, Kulebron said:

1. )- "Evolution has not been prooved, since there are no intermediate forms" (a historican)

2.) - "All the history has been faked, and what we call ancient Rome did exist but 300 years ago not 2000" (a Mathematician. He wrote a book on that and has lots of believers!)
3.) - "You must speak the good language, the examples of which are in 19th century literature", "these claims of so called new language are just an excuse to spoil the good normal language" (a catalysis chemist)
4.) - "I'd write a managerial accounting system to ease the management process, but not basing on [double-entry] bookkeeping" (a programmer)
5.) - "The fault of the Soviet economy does not at any bit refute the concept of state-run economy." (a plasma physicist)
6.) - "In 1930s our economy was the strongest since we produced the most steel in the world" (a historican)
7.) - "I think a lot of if I'm sincere with the god, and I find myself often guilty." (an elementary particle physicist PHd student) I just can't understand how you can merge science with this.

 

Which "university" is that ? They are totally nuts and none of them earns his/her title.

ad 1: Every animal breeder proves it every day. By selecting ones and killing others.

ad 2: There are dating methods. Physical/chemical or stratigraphical. Those derks have never left their backyard and didn't understand basic physical principles (like younger things, when undisturbed, are on top of older ones) but are teaching others ? How can that be ?

ad 3: i speak as i like

ad 4: he can do so. But his enterprise will never make it to a stock exchange cause there are rules of how to publish the figures and development of the firm.

ad 5: may be true. In contrast to Evolution this cannot be proven.

ad 6: That so ? Ok for me.

ad 7.: No we're coming close ! That's not a "university", that's a religious club, stubborn and quixotic ! Because he will never merge science and belief he feels guilty, like having eaten from the apple. Tip of a disbeliever to him: get out, buy a saw and take down that tree. Sell the apples. No lightning bolt from the sky will hinder him, i bet.

 

Edit: point 5 and 6 prove one thing: It's easier for a believer to convince a scientist than vice versa :-)

 

Edited July 28, 2016 by Green Baron

[Dobelong]

1. There are some things to consider:

• Many flat earthers are trolls
• Some are against the round earth because of emotions, not actual evidence (We're the last stand to stop pancake earth from falling into evil hands, we're the minority, etc.)
• Some of the real, scientific round earth facts are changed in their conspiracies, for example
  • Tides are from gravity, but flat earthers throw gravity out the window and say it's from magnetism
  • Vsauce's video from page 3 (The spotlight sun could cause the round earth measurements to be off-course, but of course, most of the explanations for flat earth are made up on the spot.) The rest was censored because it disproved them.
• They say things like:
  • A SUN that is so far away?!? ASSUMPTION! How do you  know that the evidence is not faked?
  • A spotlight sun? (With even less evidence proving its existence) FACT! 100%
  • What NASA and the planet knows is not 100% proved to be true. It's a theory (With a mountain of evidence) after all.
  • The FLAT EARTH "Theory" THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO? THAT IS FACT! 100% (Doesn't make sense now does it? Whatever they say has an inherent advantage over round earth theories. Flat earth is somehow more provable, like a 100% true fact. Isn't every fact doubtable?)

 

• And while that chaos unfolds, they say "Why assume anything at all?" as if their own theory could not be an assumption as well.
• Their "Facts" have more holes than a swiss cheese that stepped over a military checkpoint. For example,
  • Fact 1: Earth is still, because of ether that would slow it down. (They ignore the fact that ether is impossible to exist, due to relativity, possibly because relativity and gravity have been thrown out the window.)
     
  • Fact 2: Everything moves around the earth. (What about ether? The slow-down substance that apparently exists?)
• Then again, flat earth theories are usually wishy washy sentences spewed out on the spot that don't connect, and always change whenever they are disproven to not be disproved.
• At the end of the day, it's just best to ignore these people and play KSP. After all, a reaction is most of what they want from you.
• Also, basically everything we know is a theory. Searching for irrefutable truth is hard both physically and mentally, and has the risk of going insane from overthinking. Maybe it's not even possible to find the truth 100% yet, or even ever.

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by Dobelong

[Guest]

Are you ready to stand in awe for this fine gentleman's theory?

why am I doing this

why have I been watching showerhead ads for 10 minutes

help

Edited July 31, 2016 by Guest

[Robotengineer]

On July 26, 2016 at 5:01 PM, NSEP said:

The bois name was Crow777 on YouTube. He makes videos about ''lunar waves'' wich is totally his camera its average weird things.

I watched a few of his videos last year, he's a waste of time, space, and matter. He believes the moon is a hologram, planets don't exist, it's impossible to orbit, and other ridiculous claptrap. 

What irks me the most about him, and others, is that they get suckers to give them money to buy astronomy equipment, go on trips to do 'research' and other faux science activities. They are nothing but con artists. 

 Was recently dueling a troll on a different forum who didn't believe a) viruses evolve, b) that the Zika virus exists, and c) that he would have to see the 'science' to believe it (he said that the photos of babies born with microcephaly caused by Zika could just be photoshopped, really). I linked him to a medical journal review article on Zika, which he said could be faked and that he would have to look it up at a research library.

I think the general problem is that 'science' is seen as an optional belief system, rather than cold hard fact. When one group calls into question one part of scientific fact, it gives everyone else a pass to call into question the part of 'science' that they dislike. It also doesn't help that the media twists scientific studies into clickbait headlines ('a new study finds coffee is good for you!' 'a glass of wine can help prevent cardiovascular disease, a new study finds!', ad nauseam). These studies often provide conflicting evidence, so people think they can just pick and choose scientific studies to live by (go watch John Oliver's Last Week Tonight episode on scientific studies if you haven't seen it already). 

In addition to studies, there are a myriad of groups that feel they can just say solid scientific fact is false (climate change denialists, young-Earth creationists/Intelligent design advocates, anti-vaxxers, etc.) and then the media gives them equal representation with the scientists (false equivalency). 

All in all, this degrades science in the public's eye and allows the anti-science groups to continue and thrive (and I mean thrive, they built a freaking theme park just recently). 

/rant 

 

 

[NSEP]

14 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

He believes the moon is a hologram, planets don't exist,...

You go it. People who say planets and other things everybody takes pictures of dont exist are really dumb. I have seen Saturn and Mars with my own naked eyes (as dots in the sky), and there is no way for them to be a hologram or something. There are hundreds of thousand of pictures from planets like Mars, that are way too simulair to be photoshopped, and there are alot of them too, too much to be all faked. Saying the Moon and planets is fake is saying that an apple right in front of you is fake, just a product of imagination. It makes no sense.

[Dispatcher]

1 hour ago, Robotengineer said:

/rant 

 

 

That's the problem with rants.  Regardless of any person's sincerity, knowledge of facts, validity of ideas and skill in debate (or the lack of any or all of these), nobody will listen to someone who is trying to force a discourse down their throats.

The only meaningful dialog between holders of disparate views can only occur when one is willing to respect the other person, listen and then speak plainly in a non-hostile, non-provocative manner; and actually be willing to learn or at least understand what the other person is saying.

Very few are willing to do so, it seems.  That's why for the most part, the above will not happen.

[Robotengineer]

9 hours ago, Dispatcher said:

That's the problem with rants.  Regardless of any person's sincerity, knowledge of facts, validity of ideas and skill in debate (or the lack of any or all of these), nobody will listen to someone who is trying to force a discourse down their throats.

The only meaningful dialog between holders of disparate views can only occur when one is willing to respect the other person, listen and then speak plainly in a non-hostile, non-provocative manner; and actually be willing to learn or at least understand what the other person is saying.

Very few are willing to do so, it seems.  That's why for the most part, the above will not happen.

I have tried, repeatedly, to convince some of these people that science is real, to no avail. Some of them I actually respected going in, but by the end I had lost my respect for them. I also know that while I may come to a debate with an open mind, many of them will not. Their beliefs are too deeply ingrained for them to seriously consider the possibility that they are wrong. 

I don't have a problem with people having backwards beliefs, I have a problem with their backwards beliefs interfering in the real world, with very real consequences. 

Spoiler

Basically this:  

A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them. 

It does trouble me when they block my way to the mountains. 

[Green Baron]

13 hours ago, Dispatcher said:

The only meaningful dialog between holders of disparate views can only occur when one is willing to respect the other person, listen and then speak plainly in a non-hostile, non-provocative manner; and actually be willing to learn or at least understand what the other person is saying.

Very few are willing to do so, it seems.  That's why for the most part, the above will not happen.

In principle you are right and when debating with someone with a similar knowledge that is the right way to learn new things. (Meaning of life, no ? :-))

But there are groups of people (intelligent designers, scientology, the religious fringe) that try to influence others with their weird view of the world to broaden their influence. I've tried before to discuss with members of different groups (can't avoid it when on foot in a large city) but there is now way. They use exactly these techniques and appeal to the sense of understanding in others, they have an answer to almost every question and gently force their views upon their "victims". I've walked away with an emeritus university professor stuttering in a desperate voice "they almost had me where they wanted me ...."

You either need a lot of psychology or a deep knowledge together with a firm decision to not fall for that manipulative nonsense. And it is dangerous to give in to them in a sense of "i want my children and grandchildren to be educated without manipulating influence". A former german minister of education was chased out of her chair because she was trying to bring intelligent design in biology classes in school. @Kulebron wrote about a university that spreads these beliefs under the cloak of "science".

It leads to no advance to breed out ideologically limited followers/believers.

*Hough*

 

[Dispatcher]

17 hours ago, Green Baron said:

But there are groups of people (intelligent designers, scientology, the religious fringe) that try to influence others with their weird view of the world to broaden their influence. ...

Interesting, because I believe in intelligent design and I am religious.  But I'm a lot of other things too and am reasonably well respected.  Now please tell me how weird my view of the world is (and remember those pesky forum rules).

[razark]

20 minutes ago, Dispatcher said:

Interesting, because I believe in intelligent design...   Now please tell me how weird my view of the world is (and remember those pesky forum rules).

If life had to have been designed, then it must have been designed by a more complex designer.  That leaves you with either "what more complex designer designed the designer?" or an infinite regress of increasingly complex designers.

Edit:
Of course, there's the third choice that complex beings could begin to exist without needing to be designed.
 

Edited August 2, 2016 by razark

[Green Baron]

6 hours ago, Dispatcher said:

Interesting, because I believe in intelligent design and I am religious.  But I'm a lot of other things too and am reasonably well respected.  Now please tell me how weird my view of the world is (and remember those pesky forum rules).

No (cause this is not personal).

The problem i addressed is the undermining of public education by minorities such as the mentioned. If an adult decides to believe this there is nothing we can do. But give everyone a descent unindoctrinated education *first*. Indoctrinating limits the decisions of the individual and creates followers.

And no, education is different. It broadens the horizon by encouraging people to think on their own.

btw.: if i could get a grip on the designer of the human knee or the throat in land living vertebrates i'll have a few strong words him (or her), killed uncountable individuals. That was *not* intelligent. But Palaeontology has an explication for these "features".

Edited: streamlined :-)

Edited August 2, 2016 by Green Baron

[Dispatcher]

22 hours ago, razark said:

If life had to have been designed, then it must have been designed by a more complex designer.  That leaves you with either "what more complex designer designed the designer?" or an infinite regress of increasingly complex designers.

Edit:
Of course, there's the third choice that complex beings could begin to exist without needing to be designed.
 

I didn't indicate that my beliefs align with most belief systems (or revealed religions) out there.  You need to consider that ours is a middle aged solar system and that there are many star systems which are at least a billion years older than ours.  You should also recall that humans are after all limited by their senses and brain capacity.  If you look at the familiar argument that we are so advanced beyond the single celled and simple multicellular life extant on this planet, that there is no way for such life to comprehend any kind of relatively advanced being, such as a trilobite; let alone just humans.  I'm suggesting that we simply don't have the capacity to comprehend beings on the order of billions (let alone millions) of years beyond us.  So yes, such beings could be considered to be "gods", and for good reason, as I'm sure you could imagine.  Let's not drive off this path onto the Fermi Paradox for now.

But wait ... there's more!

Our universe has been described more recently as "a grand thought" more so than "grand engineering".  I understand that the question of what actually caused the Big Bang isn't yet satisfactorily answered (at least I'm not aware of it).  But consider that the simple fluctuations in density in the moments following that event have ultimately led to everything we perceive.  If God is that Prime Mover, it seems that God loves variety.  As you know, the more we learn about this world and the solar system, stars and exoplanets (let alone galaxies and other structures), it appears to be an endless variety.  It could be all chance.  And it could be all by design.  Before you raise your hand to interject a comment, you DO know that some respected scientists have posited that in a reasonable timeframe (reasonable being within the next 10,000 years or so) we might attain the ability to create artificial (small) black holes.  These same scientists argue that within such a black hole is created a baby universe.  If humans can comprehend that idea and concede the results being baby universes, how is it that an even more advanced being (or race of beings) could not do the same thing?  Perhaps our universe is inside a black hole in someone else's universe.

But wait, there's more ...

(I recommend that you take a break and go watch some "No Man's Sky" videos; particularly those about the procedurally generated universe of the game.)  18.5 quintillion planets generated within a puny PS4 or PC (using 6 Gb of mostly audio files) ain't to shabby.  I calculated that this is smaller than the known universe, but still impressive.  This is based on 64 bit seed code (ultimately based on one of the developers' phone numbers), IIRC.  Everything in the environments is driven by formulas, more so than data.  And many of these planets are "inhabited" by creatures that surprise and delight the game's creators.  Now consider that some mainstream scientists postulate that our universe is a simulation and you are a part of that.  I'm not aware of the next leap in logic made by such scientists, but the implication is that where there is a simulation, there is at least one developer or coder.  I won't go off this path to the "monkeys banging on the typewriter for a billion years and producing the works of Shakespeare, and I'm not saying that game developers are monos or monkeys (despite Squad's logo).  I'm just saying that people who are "enlightened" enough to accept the possibility of humanity's potential role in Intelligent Design by way of creating artificial black holes in the future should at least acknowledge the possibility that beings higher than humanity on any scale one can mention could exist and possibly have had a "hand" in our being here.

If you can't accept religion or "God", that's your choice.  A more honest person in my opinion is the one who simply thinks we don't have all the facts, senses or intelligence to know for certain one way or the other; an Agnostic view.  I know that I don't know everything, and I'm certain that neither do you, though its fun to always learn, and science is a large part of that learning.