I agree that conservative bureaucracies tend to form even in science, as Thomas Kuhn explained. There’s normal science which is assaulted with anomalous pieces of evidence until a paradigm shift is needed in a revolution.

I do assume what presently counts for normal science, including Big Bang cosmology, because I’m not qualified to reject it based on a thorough understanding of the theory.

If there was no Big Bang and if space isn’t expanding, what’s the cosmological model that you think better accounts for the data?

But even that might be something of a red herring in the context of my article, because that article doesn’t depend specifically on Big Bang cosmology. All I assume there is entropy. Isn’t it clear that stars are formed from giant molecular clouds, and then they eventually burn out? Won’t that happen to all stars and won’t everything eventually evolve to a state of zero thermodynamic free energy?

I take it you subscribe to a more Eastern view in which time and physical creation are cyclical? So our universe would end, but then quantum fluctuations would create another universe? Or maybe there’s a multiverse? I don’t reject those out of hand, but we’d have as much continuity with that subsequent universe or with the other universes in the multiverse as would Captain Kirk with his future self before he’s teleported. The Star Trek transporter destroys all his molecules and recreates them from the pattern buffer; that is, the transporter kills and recreates. Likewise, our universe would have to die completely for quantum magic to create something new in the cycle.