We see quantized red shift, which means the quasars and galaxies around us formed in concentric shells with the earth being the center of the
universe (obviously impossible).
Why is it *obviously* impossible? Any point in space will look like the center of the Universe to an observer at that point.
As for the scientific community trying to hang onto the big bang theory, that is not a failing. That is science at its best.
The Big Bang theory was devised to try to explain the red shift, which seemed to show that the Universe is expanding. The galaxies appear to be
receding from us, as determined by the amount of the red shift. More distant galaxies showed a higher red shift, indicating they were moving away
faster than nearby galaxies. Reverse the direction, and you get everything coming to a very small region (some say a point, though I doubt that
notion has any physical reality). Whatever.
The Big Bang theory explained more of the data known at the time, than any other theory. It still is a highly reasonable explanation for the observed
red shifts. True, there are now many questions that the Big Bang theory doesn't answer, but it's still in the running. It hasn't been knocked out
of the ring yet.
Scientists were correct in not immediately accepting new theories. They already had one that worked quite well. They modified it as new data
required explanation, but were not compelled to abandon it completely.
It may well turn out that new information will some day require the Big Bang theory to be abandoned. In fact, the information currently known may
require it. At that point, a better, more complete theory will need to replace it. This new theory will need to be tested against data. It will
need to make predictions that are different from what the Big Bang requires, and those predictions will need to be more accurate than what the Big
Bang says. If that happens, then there is a good reason to accept the new theory as more complete.
However, astronomical work is extremely difficult. Most of the time it is impossible to set up a definite experiment. We have to take what Nature
gives us, and try to explain that. So, while there are other contenders to the Big Bang, we don't have a quick way to determine which, if any, are
more complete. In the meantime, it's appropriate for scientists to retain the old theory.
It should be noted that Fred Hoyle has disliked the Big Bang since its beginning. Fred had a competing theory called the "Steady State" theory. He
claimed that matter is continually formed throughout space. This new matter causes the Universe to expand. There never was a Big Bang, just an
endless expanding Universe as new matter pushes the old away from it. Still, Fred's Universe was expanding. Just no Big Bang.
I don't know why the Steady State theory eventually lost support.