Is the issue of weather or not one believes in a creator the most important question?
The way science deals with the question, as regarding of how the universe came into existence and evoluted from then on to the world as we currently see, is not stating or excluding the possibilitie that there was a creator or not. In fact, there is no possible way in which science can rule out that issue in total (i.e. science has no "definite proof" of the existence or non-existence of a creator, nor will it ever have, no matter how complete our knowledge will be).
The scientific method and way of expression, can explain much, but fail to put the issue that rigourlously as that one can "bet ones life on it". A scientist doesn't say "Inflation theory is true, I'm ready to die for it"
(although scientists are humans too, and can not escape completely from adhering meanining to their discoveries and theories, like the saying from Einstein on the uncertainty principle "God is not playing dice")
Scientist can merely say, that a possible description of the universe is, that it came into existence from a primordal material field (a quantum fluctuation or gravitational field or any other quantum mechanical field) that "tunneled" into existence and gave rise to the existance of a material world and space/time framework as we consider this world we live in to be.
Nowhere the why question, as to why this happened, and what intention one can find in that, are answered by science. Science can just show how it could have happened, and make testable assumptions about it, which can be verified experimentally. No scientific knowledge or theory can ever be complete.
This means: people that answer the "why" question with the postulation of a creator, can not be held to state something that science could proof to be wrong. Science does not enter that debate. Science merely states that in order for it to make a viable theory, they don't need to have this postulate. And no scientist will ask us to believe the outcomes of their studies or to accept it without reason. That is why any theory is sharply debated and needs test results and have predictions, in order for it to be scientific. Scientist don't say "And then there was inflation, and the universe grew to inmense proportions in an instant" as mere statements without proof or theoretical fundaments to rely on. They don't say: in order for this theory to hold, you need to believe it. In order for a theory to hold or not, is ruled by other things as faith.
Science does not say that as a fundamental cause for anything existing in this world there was a quantummechanical gravitation field in an endless time/space framework outside or own, that causes our universe to come into being, like it came out of nothing, and ask us to pray for the quantum mechanical gravity field. Even though physic theory come up with something nothing less as a creation of the universe.
Theism does that, and let man believe in a creator, standing for this act of creation and all that followed. But theism does not explain any other thing as physical theory describes, but they put it in other terms/language as the physicist do, and adhere different meaning to it. It is of course a language not restricted to abstract and formal knowledge, but is in terms of what we as humans need or want to know about our being here. This is of course a human bound necessity. Even without knowledge of mathematics and/or physics, we need/want to know.
History has shown us different approaches towards this, in explaining in why we have come into being, and human kind developed different kind of belief systems (religions) that in their own terms explain us this.
The purpose of this is not any different as why humankind developed science, although the nature of the way it is explained is of course different. A belief system is a closed system, it tries to explain everything, and must accomodate for any question one asks. A Scientific theory and the way science works, can be thought as open, science develops, and science never comes up with a final answer, and can never answer all questions (all answers merely give rise to more new questions).
Science does not have absolute answers, valid for all times.
But inevitably, science produces more and more knowledge, which explain in more and more detail, how this evolving of this universe, and life on this planet, happened. And in some fields up to some extent that some parts may be best seen as truths, as that it is arguable that some outcomes of scientific study in some fields, are that well tested and accepted that it may well hold for very long, without any reasonable suspicion as that it would be replaced by something completely else. Like the theory of gravity is supposed to hold for a very long time, and maybe only in the aspect of the reunification with the other forces, can give rise to adaptations for some special situations (like the conditions that existed in the very early universe), but not as a replacement for the whole theory.
Yet, we have to be aware, that no matter how many well tested and proven theories we have, there are always infinite many undiscoverd truths, of which an infinite subset of truths for fundamental reasons, can never be discovered.
But is it worthwhile to make untestable and undefiable statements, postulating a deity or creator, in order to complement for our limited knowledge? And for what reason?
For what practical purposes. What can we do or not do, based on accepting such a postulate, which we can not do with our more mortal and limited virtues of developing scientific knowledge? Do we know more, or are we better humans, if we belief in a creator? Are we more human?
Or is it more human to reason on what we can know based on our limited capacities in all fields of knowledge that we can master.
And isn't it the more crucial issue on what you do on basis of your point of view or belief, then the point of view or belief itself?
Just some things to think about...