Let's be very clear, because this is a key point. As we cannot prove evolution and we cannot scientifically test the beginning of the universe, we can only theorize. We can certainly believe in a theory as a logical explanation, but that's a choice. It is very important to recognize the element of faith involved.

Before you jump up and protest too loudly, defines faith as 'confidence or trust in a person or thing'.

You may have confidence that everything started (and has always unfolded), in a completely undirected, naturalistic way, but we do not know this empirically. You do, however, have confidence or trust in the idea because a majority of scientists hold to those assertions. You have faith in the opinion of those scientists.

You should be aware that there is an increasing amount of scientific evidence (and an increasing percentage of scientists), that point towards a created and directed universe.

Of course, much the same as we cannot empirically prove the undirected nature of our origins, we cannot empirically prove the universe was created either. However, is it prudent to reject this possibility without any investigation... simply because it is a position currently held by a minority of scientists?

Consensus is neither fact nor truth. Once a theory that better fits the observed data is discovered, majority held scientific opinions are overturned. This has occurred many times throughout history. It is how (and why), science works.

Consider that with an undirected universe, you must first reconcile the idea of no one, bringing everything into existence from nothing... then you must deal with the spontaneous creation and subsequent adaptation of life (against what we now know to be literally unbelievable odds).

With some form of creator, you have someone, bringing everything into existence from nothing, with intelligence, by design. In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, would this not seem the shorter leap of faith?

This is not a purely academic matter, where you place your faith (or whatever you prefer to call your confidence that transcends beyond actual evidence), will affect your future. You, personally, need to be confident that your paradigm is valid and consistent with current empirical data. Rather than taking it on 'faith', you need to be asking the difficult questions.
15 questions you need to askbasing my future on it?It's not faith

By definition, science is about observing our world, creating theories as to how it functions, and then testing and verifying those theories with repeatable, and peer-reviewed, experiments. The beginning of our universe is not a repeatable, reviewable experiment.

The Big Bang theory has no credible provision for the creation of information. Matter is not information. A formatted hard drive full of data is identical in mass to an unformatted drive. The difference is in the information contained.

If you're walking on the beach and you see the words, "Jeff loves Sue", that's information. You're not going to assume tide and time arranged the grains of sand that way. You're going to assume a mind, because we know (intuitively and observationally), that information comes from intelligence.

If you are accepting an undirected Big Bang as true, it is important to realize that you are doing so on faith. (And there's nothing wrong with that, we all have to make the leap to the best explanation possible. I think our mission in this life is to find out what that best explanation is and react accordingly.)

The main point is that theory is not fact, even though it is often presented as such. The other big takeaway is that our decisions in this area are not just an academic exercise, they will affect our future.

basing my future on it?15 questions you need to askIt's not faith Patreon