Let me see if I understand this... you are saying that some scientists become big bang deniers because they don't agree with the inherent requirement of science, namely that the supernatural cannot be involved. Is that right?
Layman got my intention right, this is a philosophical question. Maybe you just don't do philosophical, no shame in that.
So to fine tune the explanation of what I meant I'll have to risk sounding insulting which I really, really do not intend. But to put it into black and white terms, I think the 'Big Bang Denier scientists (among others) are driven more by an emotional reaction
to any theory or evidence that could remotely infer an 'extra-natural' intelligence, rather than anything resembling science.