The fuss is about a certain, currently irreducible, fraction or cohort of people among us who are die-hard atheists.
The Big Bang theory, for them, has always been a great comfort, relieving them, however temporarily, of the responsibility of having to admit that they are wrong in thinking that there is not and has never been an all-powerful God the Father.
Take away the Big Bang theory and a whole lot of very, very smart but very, very intellectually darkened (and thus, spiritually vulnerable) people will have to contend, simultaneously, with an immense case of cognitive dissonance.
And that’s what we’re beginning to see, Charlie Brown.
Actually, you have it backwards in spite of what Hawkings has said about God the BBT posits a beginning just like Genesis is a beginning. It says nothing about who or why. Anyway, that’s not science’s job to answer those things. It replaced the Steady State Theory (SST) which doesn’t require a ‘creation’. Which makes it much more an ‘atheist’ theory. It’s infinite in both negative time and positive time. SST does posit a lot of little ‘creations’, matter popping out of ‘nothing’ - the quantum fluctuations to replace matter burned up by stars.
Anyway, theories are proposed, they work for a while maybe a long while then new data comes modifies the theory or eventually completely subsumes into a new theory. That’s science. If it’s carved in concrete can’t be changed that’s dogma. There’s a difference.
Again, why the fuss?
Faith and science are different things. Those offended by one or the other understand neither.
Faith need not have validation from science. Science does not seek validation from Faith.
They can can and do coexist in the same mind.
Is that controversial? Should it be?