Having gone to school before thr 'big bang' was in serious contention as a theory, I have followed the debate for over 50 years.,,,close to 60. The most popular idea back then was 'continuous creation, where atoms of hydrogen just kept 'popping into existence' and than getting disturbed and knocked about until they joined others.'

Better? Worse? Neither.... we could still argue where one atom came from, as well as where a singularity cane from..... and whether some infinite intelligence **decided** where to create an atom.

What we have now is better instruments and computers to look more directly at stars & galaxies and even detect & measure stuff we barely dreamed of 60 years ago, Much of this new data demands new and/or revised theories to integrate it, and pushes (or drags) us in certain directions. We are essentially trying to describe the relationships, using complex math and super-computers, between the various news observations.
The more information we have, the more certain basic lines of thought rise to the top,....except for creationist themes which have essentially NO new data. What they have is the assertion that "God did it".... and because, as MtheGM says."I dunno... and YOU dunno", we can't prove them wrong, it IS the case that creationism is irrelevant EXCEPT as a personal opinion. Merit? Well... it provides a hobby. If I were a betting man, I bet a large sum that we will never find any 'ultimate' answer....but I would also bet that YOUNG EARTH creatinoism will gradually fade more into the backwaters as real *evidence* overwhelms it