Both evolutionists and creationists explain ultimate origins with an untestable, unobservable supernatural event. Yes, at inception the Big Bang is indeed...
supernatural: a. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; b. departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
|Full article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n4/big-bang-evolution-of-theory|
Enter creationists. We also have a supernatural starting point which is difficult to imagine when we look at the world today, (so is a 40-ft dinosaur) but many of us have empirical, tested reasons to trust this theory. Many don't question and assume it's true a priori, though cultural vitriol toward anything Christian is driving more and more people to do the homework and discover a literal avalanche of hard evidence supporting the Bible as a history book (this topic needs its own post). A little research or a person more educated in science and/or textual criticism will produce facts like the expansion of space and CMB radiation ... and history, anthropology, philosophical/scientific cohesion, consistency, etc. as sufficient proof of creationism to accept the theory as fact - and the creation account remains consistent and rational (if currently unpopular) over thousands of years. History is replete with examples of popularity as a poor indicator of truth; remember when the world's 'leading scientists' had hard evidence the earth was flat?***
Facts are neutral. Rock layers and outward-moving stars don't have an opinion; they just are. Thus, the same facts are interpreted differently with creation as a starting point than they are with Big Bang.
As for (macro)evolution? No one has ever seen it. We've seen adaptation within kinds, which is a huge leap from one kind growing into another - so rare that no one has ever observed a single instance. So it's hardly confirmed observational science; it's an interesting theory (with its own suitcase of issues like microbiology, skepticism even from secular scholars, and a profound lack of fossil record backup).
So when you look into it a bit, there's really no reason at all for a person with a naturalistic worldview to dismiss a creationist's worldview as unscientific because it entertains the supernatural or is lacking in facts. I'd argue that the creation side actually cites greater, more comprehensive evidence - and is more realistic by its open acknowledgement of the supernatural starting point obviously necessary for both theories.
Look into it! Compare information to the many great resources at www.answersingenesis.com. God will never ask you to check your brain at the door!
*** That was 1490AD. Isaiah, written 700BC and readable today in the Dead Sea Scrolls, cites the earth as ROUND. See Isaiah 40:22