Ok, I'll bite.
How is what we "know" about the Big Bang repeatable? Oh, I have no doubt that there are a number of people that can repeat this or that mathematical calculation/"proof". But we're nowhere near the repeatability of Newton's apple or Tycho Brahe's collection of empirical evidence.
What we have is a sample size of one: this universe that exists and exhibits a variety of characteristics consistent with a Big Bang story. Every other universe posited is....I believe ... a construction of logic and higher maths and wonderful storytelling. ISTM anyone that claims the superiority of a method that draws cosmic conclusions from an unrepeatable (by man) sample size of one should not be casting stones at those who would draw similar cosmic conclusions from an unrepeatable (by man) sample of one God. If anything, the opposite, for at least the God believer admits his is a giant leap of faith.
As for science being "as good as it gets" in the human search for truth, I can't really quibble there. (Not all would agree that "economists" and "historians" are scientists, of course.) But on the other hand, I also believe that we exaggerate how good that "as good as it gets" truly is.
Take for example the question of life on other planets. Suppose someone picks a star at random from tonight's sky. What do we know about life on the planets, asteroids, space stations, or whatnot orbiting that star? (Or, if that little light that we first think is a star but actually turns out to be a galaxy or an entire cluster of galaxies, what do we know about life in that galaxy or cluster?) Scientists (and non-scientists) have speculated. They have techniques for measuring the intensity of that star, or the likelihood that it is "like" Sol, or that it is a galaxy receding from us at a particular pace, etc. But as far as actual scientific evidence of "what it takes to get (sentient) life on a planet, we have, again, a sample size of exactly one.
Fortunately, science isn't just about repeatability. Its about asking questions in a particular way, with a particular kind of modesty, the kind of modesty that recognizes that even after several hundred years of Enlightenment, what we don't know dwarfs what we do.
If science was no more than what can be repeated in a college laboratory, it would be a very small subject.
I consider myself a scientist. But I absolutely hate the word "fact". Fact is a word of certainty. And I think a true scientist always remembers that the accuracy of what we "know" is still probabilistic. That no matter how many times we "repeat" a "controlled" experiment, we cannot prove that the uncontrolled universe has, is, or will behave in the same way.
Facts are what God (or, if you want to reject God, the universe) knows. In our imprecision we scientific types may talk about finding and using facts, but what we are really doing is arguing that our methods of conjecture are better than the alternative.
I have no problem with an organic chemist saying her methods of making conjectures are better than my historian's methods of making conjectures. I do have a problem with anyone, economist or chemist or anyone else, claiming that they are dealing only in "facts" whereas I and mine are "merely conjectures".
Tell me you have a way of making better conjectures about the role of the Divine, and I'll listen. I might accuse you of hubris, but I'll listen. But tell me that you are dealing only in fact and that only I in my damned insistence of a possible Divine role, and I will not only accuse you of hubris, but I will say that you neither understand my method nor the limitations of your own.
IMO we'd all be better off if we removed "fact" from our vocabulary along with similarly useless terms like "objective" and perhaps even "truth" (in the sense of something that we can actually achieve). They are the kind of words that Orwell railed against almost 70 years ago, tired words that suggest precision and accuracy when in fact they reflect exactly the opposite in actuality. Leave them to politicians, CEOS, movie producers, and other sophomoric thinkers.
The pursuit of truth is a noble human endeavor. To claim the knowledge of truth is the act of a fool.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)