I tend to agree with you. I don’t see why people think that a God who set up the laws of science, started it all with the big bang, and let it play out is problematic. It is still true in that case that God created man (and everything else in the universe). The Bible is not a science textbook. It is a book on morality originally written for a pre-industrial tribe who had very little actual knowledge of how the natural world works. It would not have made any sense at all for the Bible to speak about population genetics, changing allele frequencies, natural selection, etc.
Besides, the physical atoms that make up our bodies are not really that significant; we are human because we are made in God’s image. That, IMHO, refers not to physical appearance, but rather to intellectual capacity and the presence of a soul. God created man when he ensouled the first man, Adam. What difference does it make where the physical body came from?
I would ask those who are skeptical: why could an omnipotent and omniscient being get everything started (ie Big Bang), set up initial condition (laws of science), and let it all work out, all the while knowing what the inevitable result will be? Why would God need to step in and make changes along the way? Would that not imply that God did something wrong to begin with? Would that not contradict God’s omnipotence and omniscience?
Deism was condemned by Vatican I. Also, there is no reason to believe that the universe works like a deterministic mechanism. Why should people believe in a 19th century view of the physical universe as some kind of spiritual truth?