That's only if Big Bang has merit. There is as much around to refute it as support it as a theory. Don't forget the latest flavour of the month is that we are on the outer edge of a bubble, with zilch or something in the middle depending on whose work one wishes to support.Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
In the end any philosophy can find some interpretation of some data to support it and try to turn a philosophy into a science. TOE is nothing more than an atheist philosophy around how life came to be WITHOUT the hand of God or direction from a deity at its base.
If the hand of God was involved in any way "creation" is established regardless of whether or not it was via the process of instant creation or via intelligent and directed design of some sort.
To date the fact that with all the advances in science and genetics life cannot be seen to evolve from non life. A living cell is by definition a complex factory of irreduceably complex functions such as reproduction.
The fact that amino acids cannot be given 'that spark of life' attests to have been given by the hand of God as suggested in the bible. This is some of the best "evidence' that the creation of life remains miraculously unobtainable by mankind, despite many theoretical possibilities.
Hence any variation of creation appears to have more merit at its base than any philosophy that suggests otherwise.