So is a heliocentric solar system, but everything is a matter of "theory" in science as theory means a scientific process to explain an observable fact.
We can observe how new elements are created in furnaces of supernovas.
You choose to believe the beauty and order around us arose from an explosion and random chance...
Not "an explosion', but many. And supernovas occur according to a process and stellar life cycle that scientists know quite a lot about. Looks like you're confusing supernovas with the Big Bang (which wasn't an explosion by the way), so your ignorance is to be expected. If you'd spent one minute of your life reading a book on cosmology (or science of any kind), you wouldn't sound like such a doofus.
Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it. Charles R Anderson
Incidentally, your theory asserts only helium and hydrogen were formed in the initial expansion (bang! there it is!), and all other elements were formed in stars and released when they exploded, thus providing the other elements that make up our planet, and consequently, us. Thus, all of the complexity around us resulted from an explosion and random chance. If you want to assert it was many explosions, fine with me. If you want to "clarify" that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of matter and space from a single point, instead of an explosion, I could care less. It is mostly based on the observed red-shift anyway.
I don't buy it, thinking it a poor explanation for the observed complexity.
FWIW, the scripture mentions that God "...stretched out the heavens" multiple times, which may account for the observed red-shift, for example:
Isaiah 45:12 "It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.