[Scott Mayers (OP)]

I have a few questions that bother me most about HOW and WHAT information is given on the logical explanations of certain factors on the periphery of science. As to the title, I have quite a few. But I'll just deal with one at time to those who have a good background on this.

(1) I often hear of how the Cosmic Background Radiation was the final factor that definitively condemned the Steady State Theory. But I find the information on this lacking and, as an atheist, hard to simply 'trust' without understanding the logical explanations that are not present without expecting one to INVEST in a PHD itself. I compare my concern to those who might say of concern to question one's religion when they respond that I'd require reading the Bible to be initially qualified to understand. I might argue that the bible is simply a book and being vulnerable to prove its veracity by simply reading it is circular: Why would I require investing in an 'authority' (the scripture) that in itself is expected to PROVE that the validity of that authority is 'true'?

We seem to be treated this way with regards to some lack of clarity on many science issues presented to the public. Instead of a detailed attempt to even try to explain this in popular teaching, it often defaults to first declare that others who don't believe are considered defective (nuts or some similar degrading term), then proceed to only TELL the conclusions interpreted by authorities without the respect of a logical explanation.

While the math and other prerequisites is helpful, the LOGIC prior to specific arguments does not need them when we understand the connecting motives and details involved that lead to some interpreted theory.

So, with this intro of my own motive to question up front, can anyone answer or BEGIN to help me connect the logical details that lead to assuming that the Cosmic Background Radiation IS what it is claiming to be, and to how and why the Steady State was dependent upon this as an essential disproof of that theory?