Glad to see we are converging on the matter of science and unrepeatable events. The big bang cannot be tested, being unique, universal and giving rise to the very laws which science then works on and by - the most science can do is project current regularities back in time to the presumed singularity. Or at least until such time as it demonstrates a multiverse and a way to observe it beyond the Big Bang.
The KT event is only investigable because it’s not unique - the wealth of information on cosmic impacts allows us to apply them to what’s found around Mexico etc and draw reasonable conclusions based on known laws and entities.
In other words, what science can do is predict, and theorise on, regularities and, sometimes, observe (merely) unique contingencies. Which conclusion saves me from joining the other contentious thread by suggesting (not for the first time) that a term like “methodological regularism” answers the turn of both theists and materialists (and anybody else) by being based not on a metaphysical assumption (naturalism/materialism/theism etc) but on an observation (“regularity” or “reproducibility”).
Such a term links the regular (which is, it has been said, the only coherent scientific definition of “natural”) neither with God nor apart from him: it simply deals with it.
A consequence of that is science doesn’t get to rule on the causes of contingencies it can’t explain. “Chance” (when not simply meaning “of yet unknown cause” or “with a certain probability relative to particular knowledge”) would be properly outside science’s remit, allowing the materialist to believe stuff just happens in an Epicurean way, and theists to believe God governs his universe.
The only people this could upset, it seems to me, are those who want to hide metaphysical presumptions under the banner of “objective science,” so that science escapes having its limitations delineated.