Rehabilitating the idea of creation - Big Bang Cosmology

Recently, I have suggested rehabilitating the idea of creation, because the Big Bang is essentially a creationist theory. A friend writes to say:

Just a couple of observations if I may please?

1. I agree that The Big Bang is a "creationist theory". However, it is probable that one day it will be superseded. We must be careful not to lean too heavily on the current paradigm. When I meet with Reasons to Believe, for example, because of the over-arching weight they attach to Big Bang Cosmology, I warn that their apologetic may be in trouble fifty years from now. The Big Bang is something of a reigning paradigm. I mean, it's a protected sphere and access to the best telescopes are restricted to Big Bang Cosmologists - unbelievers not allowed. Yes, it's the dominant game in town, but it's not the only evidence-based game in town - see Halton Arp, for example.

And of course we have the shocking case of Guillermo Gonzalez - see your own Colliding Universes, June 18th 2008 !

[From Denyse: Sure. But in fairness, Gonzalez wasn't Expelled for doubting the Big Bang, but for suggesting that Earth is in a highly favourable location for science, rather than just being an accidental dot somewhere. What Gonzalez says is unquestionably true, but it also offends the pious atheist astronomer because it amounts to dissing St. Carl Sagan in his own Church of Astronomy. ]

2. Staying with Big Bang Cosmology, the enormous problem has to be "Where did all the energy ( the bang!) come from?" I continually marvel at the tiny amounts of Nuclear material required to do almost incalculable explosive damage - consider Hiroshima. How is it that such small masses of material contain such vast potential energy? And where did the whole lot come from in the first place?

Well, that's the big question, I guess ... how did the rabbit get into the Hat?