Again, Ric said,
I never understood why some religious people couldn't accept the big bang.

REP: Here are two reasons why religious people find it hard to accept some things that are scientifically staring them in the face. I limit my comments to Christianity.

1. When we believed that lightning was hurled from the heavens by an angry God, and that earthquakes were caused by him angrily stomping around, it was easy to maintain a belief in God and we felt secure in that ? although how secure you could feel with a God that spent most of his time in a foul temper is debatable.
Now there may be lots of religious people who have the unswerving belief of a village idiot that God is in the heavens and all is well, but I and other Christians I know will admit to having doubts at times, (maybe the best defence against a dangerous fundamentalism). When someone experiences doubt and sees one of the things that have they have used to combat those doubts being ripped away by science, then they may start to get defensive or offensive. For example, the belief that we are physically at the centre of the universe that led us to wrongly employ strong-arm tactics to resist heliocentric thinking.

2. When you believe that Genesis is to be read literally, then of course, the idea of evolution is anathema. The thinking is that, ?if we jettison a literal belief in any part of the bible, then what foundation does our theology now rest on ? this will erode the authority of scripture?.
This is a concern, yes, but will only mean that we will have to think a little more clearly to define what is literal or not.
Clearly the following verse in Song of Solomon where the author writes about his lover is not to be taken literally, but is poetic :

Your two breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle,
that feed among the lilies.

Well I started with the big bang and ended with breasts. Not a bad days work if I do say so myself.