Science has always been part of religions.<quoted text>
Both the BB and the SS had red-shifts due to expansion of the universe. Those have been verified and are a requirement of any new thoery. The cosmic background radiation shows the condition of the universe at a particular time: it was very hot and dense and expanding. Any new thoery will have to take that into consideration. The observed abundances of the light elements show that the universe was once hot and dense enough for fusion reactions *and* that those reactions were cut off before completion by the expansion. Any new thoery will have to deal with that.
So, the essential aspects of the BB thoery are established: that the universe is expanding from a very hot, dense state. Furthermore, the details are incredibly well described by general relativity and statistical mechanics. Any new thoery will have to deal with that.
You seem to think that it is a bad thing that science is able to adapt to new information by coming up with new thoeries that fit both the old evidence and the newer evidence. To the contrary, it is one of the shining advances the human race made when we realized that a sequence of increasingly good approximations is better than a single bad worldview. Religion is still stuck in the philosophy and superstitions of 2000 years ago, while science has progressed because it can learn and change.
You didn't spend fortunes and bust balls of the populace building megalithic temples for thousands of years unless they did something.