The big bang theory appeals to those who value facts about physical phenomenon as the most important information to form a coherent understanding from; we can say that they think "how" is a more important question than "why".
This ignores the history of cosmology. Astrophysicists rejected
the Big-Bang idea when Alexander Friedman
and George Lemaitre
first suggested it in the 1910s and 1920s. They preferred cosmological theories according to which the universe had existed eternally. Subsequently, Hubble discovered the red-shift in the spectrum of galaxies, which forced
cosmologists to accept the expanding-universe model. Later, the 3K background radiation forced
them to accept that this expansion began with a Big Bang. It didn't matter if the model appealed
to astrophysicists or not. The universe is what it is; if we don't find it appealing, that's our problem, not its.
Creation appeals to those who value the emotional impact of ideas and feel more inclined to seek coherency that way.
How does modern cosmology fail to appeal to us emotionally? The universe is awesome
such as it is, such as cosmologists have discovered it to be. Creation, by contrast, downgrades it into some kind of celestial app, invented by some kind of celestial Steve Jobs. How petty and arrogant of us humans to bring the universe down to our level like that! This idea doesn't emotionally appeal to me at all. (Not that emotional appeal matters either way---see above.)