Sorry, but your argument is just not logical. Science cannot on the one hand hold to the assumption of naturalism and on the other hand attribute things to supernatural causes. That’s an obvious and direct contradiction.
If science holds to strict naturalism, then a hypothesis like the Big Bang that requires intervention from outside the universe has basically falsified itself. Alternatively, they could hold to that hypothesis and instead declared naturalism to be falsified, but that would undermine everything else they have based on the presumption of naturalism. There’s no alternative third option where they can hold both and be consistent.
If science holds to strict naturalism, then a hypothesis like the Big Bang that requires intervention from outside the universe has basically falsified itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you hold to the Steady State model and that the Big Bang is unscientific?
That means that the Creation Ministries International article has a good point. Why are scientists pursuing any work that is not based on science?
By the way, if you have any evidence besides simple assertion that the Big Bang theory and cosmic inflation are invalid (what did you call it? “fudging the numbers”?), you can get a Nobel Prize in Physics. Just write it up and send it in. Like all math classes, though, they’ll ask you to show your work. Hope you did it.