First of all, it's no less difficult to find someone who has a PhD in any field of science who isn't also wrong about much or even most of what they believe, who is simultaneously unaware that what he believes is not a matter of fact but of what he believes. You wouldn't believe what kind of truly uninspired people pass for scientists these days, or how little proactive effort it takes to get the top grades in the most difficult university science courses. I won't explain why this is the case, but it is, and there are institutional protections which ensure that it remains so. What really matters at the end of the day is not what people believe or accept, but what the truth is. You've probably seen quotes from famous scientists like Maxwell and Planck and Bohr to that end. I would remind you that such people are rare not because there are few scientist capable of thinking outside the box, but that the more genius it takes to comprehend an idea, the less people will comprehend it, and the more isolated such people are from other such people, the less likely you'll know they ever existed. Based on the few of your statements I read, I would know you're an American (infer what you wil from this), without your having self-identified as a Yooper.
Secondly, it's not actually hard; it's just that "scientists" are actually human beings, so it is very uncommon for someone who is both intelligent and ambitious enough to put in the effort to get through grad school, essentially locking himself into the career track of either teaching or conducting research according to the very strict parameters of an extremely dogmatic groupthink paradigm which makes no tolerance or allowance for progressing thinking or inquiry, who will then throw away the career he has chosen and experience the adverse consequences to his family by simply stating that his private beliefs don't match his public acceptance. My brother (who teaches chemistry at a university in the Midwest) and I used to joke about how any "educated" person could put any stock in the Big Bang Theory, or in the Theory of Evolution. Yet neither of us would discuss our misgivings about bad science with colleagues, on account of having much to lose and nothing to gain from it. This is a common characteristic of individual adherence to propaganda and groupthink; social psychological research has shown that a wide gap exists between private acceptance and public overtures in many areas. In my experience there is no issue more divisive among thinking people than the one in question. That the new scientific paradigm, being a human endeavor, and humans being subject to all kinds of passions and extrinsic interests, is not the only exception to the rule that every attempt which humans have made to understand nature has been wrought with fallibility and errors, ought to be clearly understood by anyone objective enough to fancy himself a proper scientist. Yet in spite of this, the paradigm is not without is share of vocal critics, who are evidently never met with reasonable responses to their serious objections, and who have historically been vindicated again and again by experimentation and no less acceptance of their positions than the hostility they incurred. I know the mentality of these rogue pioneers, and the vast majority of them would have scoffed at the BBT not for its attempt at answering a difficult problem (that of--forgive me for being overly simplistic here, but--reducing existence to effect without cause, i.e. philosophical naturalism, atheism), but for the acceptance which it has gained in spite of having had its underlying assumptions shot to pieces again and again. Some less capable scientists aren't even recognized as such because they do take the hard road and forfeit their careers, and wind up on the creationism lecture circuit or wherever, where they continue to have their credentials put into question and other such ad hominem attacks. I'm reminded of Kent Hovind, who, being innocent of his charges and they being trumped up because he was recognized as an enemy of the establishment (a heretic), had a judge tell him, on the public record, that what he was teaching was the reason she was sending him to prison. In other words, we haven't made much progress since Socrates drank the hemlock. I don't know about you, but that's not exactly the kind of world I want to live in. It is, however, the consensus which you're appealing to. I would also add that while such a consensus generally does exist, there is no consensus as to the how we know what we claim to know. Case in point: how many Darwin-loving biologists do you know that would call On the Origin of Species a scientific reference manual? And you've also got to realize that the consensus was artificially induced in academia and the public consciousness in the early 60s as Cold War scare tactic, that every since then there has been a deliberate and routine cover-up as well as willful ignorance of research conducted outside the US and UK or without government funding because it doesn't fit the government paradigm (do some investigation of the safety of GMOs or of the neurotoxicity of vaccines and you'll see what I mean), and of such things as scientists reneging on positions which they have popularized due to widely disseminated and politically motivated agendas driven by financial interests (e.g. Out of Africa hypothesis). Again, this has always been the case since the dawn of Man, and yet those of the new scientific paradigm pretend like all that's changed since the speed of light was last officially changed in 1972. Really, guys?
Either you don't understand the first principles of science (the philosophical assumptions that go into the composition of laws, not the secondary principles, which are the laws themselves), or else you're misinformed by someone who has tried to explain them away in a vain attempt to outwit them and rewrite the matter-of-fact history of the universe, presumably in order to justify an irrational and rather absurd religious sentiment (atheism), which itself is the mere rejection of another religious sentiment and not actually anything rooted in empirical observation. I imagine the explanation goes like this: "BBT isn't rejected by these laws because it doesn't claim anything came into existence," while failing to remark on the inevitable implication that it hasn't answered anything relevant to the origin of the matter/energy, and has only therefore complicated the matter and thus rendered itself an unscientific as well as unsubstantiated hypothesis. Simple question: If the BBT isn't being tauted as a valid alternative to the view that the universe was created by an intelligent being or other outside mechanism, as is its original and sole purpose, then what good is it? And I know people here (atheists) will read about half of the first sentence of what I've typed, ignore the rest, and then chime in about how I've allegedly got something wrong with me, etc., etc. I couldn't care less. In any case, it's remarks like this, bare assertions in response to valid objections or refutations, and unwillingness to provide references for unsubstantiated claims, which make scientists generally unwilling and uninterested in arguing with laymen, or listening to whatever they have to say. And while you might reasonably infer that you don't need to care about their views to any extent or engage them in such discourse, according to their terms or the universal rules of logic and argumentation, it is a bit hypocritical to obliquely cite an unnamed cosmologist you might have once read as a means of persuasion in support of a hypothesis you have about something which is pertinent to scientific investigation.
