The Big Bang is a hypothesis that doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny, leaving everything that relies on it as a foundation in the realm of fantasy. The fudge factors involved would have long ago rendered any other hypothesis (save global warming) a laughingstock.
You got that right: bigbang is based on red-shift, i.e., galaxies appear redder than they ought to, which would indicate they are receding from our perspective. “Redder than they ‘ought’ to be”? In whose lexicon?
The premise was, when I read it in 1963, that the assumption was, that the most prevalent metallic element in all galaxies ought to be, iron; therefore, its characteristic orange-ish glow should be orange-ish; but in distant galaxies, the glow was redder than that, hence those galaxies (by Doppler-ish contexts) must be receding, hence an expanding universe, hence, there must have been an initial point, hence, big bang.
Critical variable, unexplained yet assumed, who says galaxies should glow one color or another?
On the contrary, it is one of the most well-founded theories in all of science, second only to general relativity. If you're worried about the religious implications, you should know that astronomers who embraced it were accused of joining "The First Church of Christ of the Big Bang," because the atheists do not want there to be a beginning point of all things, because that points to a creation, and with a creation, you need a Creator. Which is what Hawking has been fighting against since the 70's.
I'm a Christian, and my God is big enough to have handcrafted a Big Bang. If you're a young-earther, you're going to have problems with a billions-year-old universe anyway.