Well, all I can say is that the universe is looking more medieval by the day:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf

Those of us who have intuited the absurdity of nothing gathering itself up into an infinitely dense point mass and exploding, coalescing randomly, over time, into all that exists, are about to have a very nice stretch of "I told you so", courtesy of those wonderful astronomers :-)

The Big Bang was not an explosion, so making analogies to explosions looks, as an argument, like just hoping that someone in the audience is ignorant enough to take the argument at face value. The truth of the Big Bang doesn't support the argument at all.

That's because the conclusion quoted above from the article is unambiguously, literally false. The universe is now much more disordered than it did in its early moments. When you look around you, the order you see is mostly in the Earth's biosphere, not so much in anything else about the universe. And as it happens, the order that we see in the biosphere has been extraordinarily well explained in theories that have no need for a God to fill roles or plug holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Martin Rees, the cosmologist and astrophysicist who popularized the metaphor "fine-tuned universe" in his book Cosmic Coincidences (1989) coathored with John Gribbin, is not a theist.

You do not need evidence to support a claim that something seems to be … whatever. The same for commonsense which nobody uses to mean evidence.

However, the idea of "fine tuning" is simply backwards. Physicists have to "fine tune" their mathematical models to get them to produce results that match experimental observations. This does not mean that the Universe is "fine tuned." Sticking a pin in a voodoo doll is not the same as sticking a pin in the person that the doll is made to represent. I have written more about the hoax of "fine tuning" here: http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/2008/06/anthropomorphizing-fine-tuning.html

The underlying question here is "Why do we have this particular universe, and not some other one?". As I've stated on several other articles on this site, we do not have an answer to that question, because we don't have any evidence to guide us in answering it. Until we do, you're simply engaging in gap reasoning.

"...the commonsense conclusion [is] that the theologians were right all along."

I see a problem with this:

"All along" the theologians have maintained that the earth, seas, and even plants existed before the sun and stars, not afterward, as the Big Bloom/Bang both imply. The philosophical root of the controversy between believers and unbelievers, and even among believers, has always been the mechanism of Creation, not the highest purpose (or product) of it.

Our theology tells us that the universe was produced by a Designer, and the traditional understanding was that it was instantaneous (or took six natural days, which basically amounts to the same thing). But, according to the Big Bang Theory, the universe was produced by Chance, the exact opposite of Design. The difficulty of proving this has lead to the current state of affairs, namely, that "Scientists now admit, almost universally" that "the universe is indeed not ‘any old world’ but the carefully calculated construct of its Creator."

Thus, Chance is out, Design is in, and the Big Bang becomes the Big Bloom.

But, wait a second. The "Big Bloom" doesn't really discard Chance, at least not completely. The author used the example of a pile of debris which "explodes" and becomes a 3 bedroom house, and likens this to the formation of the universe. Now, in order for this to work, it would obviously have to be a very particular explosion. The motion imparted on each brick would have to be specific and exact to produce the house, thus it would have to be a "Designed explosion," if you catch my meaning.

As a matter of fact, the emergence of the house could more easily be described as the destruction of the house played in reverse. It is like watching a video-tape of an explosion, but running it backward. The entire scene is one of disorder and chaos, until at the final scene the viewer sees the house and realizes, with a shock, that it was Designed from the very beginning.

Or, to use the author's phrase, it was not a "Bang," but a "Bloom." Thus, what was previously thought to be "disorder and chaos" turns out to be nothing of the sort. It was a mere illusion. Chance exists within the greater sphere of Design.

You might even say that the Big Bloom has baptized Chance, and made it a servant of God!

My question is this: is this the right thing to do? If Chance has proven to be an insufficient explanation, should we really force it into it's complete opposite? Or would it be better to simply discard it altogether? Should we merely rename the Big Bang, while leaving it more or less unchanged? Or should we just scrap it completely and come up with something else entirely?

After all, to have to speak of chaos "unfolding" into order seems to me an indication that the whole thing might really be unsalvageable.