TexasGator: "Hypotheses are proposed and tested."
Strictly speaking, a theory is a confirmed hypothesis, so how was the Big Bang hypothesis confirmed?
Two observations are often listed: 1) the expansion of the Universe implies a moment of singularity and, 2) cosmic background radiation is said to be "left over" from the Big Bang.
But to make the whole idea work, scientists have been forced to invent, concoct, "imagineer", fantasize -- take your pick -- unobserved "dark matter", "dark energy", faster than light-speed "inflation", "multi-verses" and more, suggesting more a house of cards than a solid scientific theory.
Now come some new observations which seem to contradict what Big Bang "Theory" predicted, so are these the needles to burst the Big Bang balloon, the straws that break the camel's back, or are they just minor discrepancies requiring minor adjustments to otherwise valid calculations?
We don't know, but we do know the beauty of Big Bang is its simplicity -- everyone can visualize a "let there be light" moment -- and any replacement theory is likely to be far more complicated and less visualizable.
Theologically, I don't think it really matters, still it would be a shame to lose our "let there be light" moment, but in the meantime, Big Bang should be referred to as unconfirmed hypothesis, not a strongly confirmed theory, imho.