Cassius, I advise caution in saying that there would be any scientific discovery we would reject on the grounds that someone would use it to insert their god of the gaps. We are wisest to base knowledge on evidence, not worry about trying to get evidence to exclude religionists. No creator is needed for the various Big Bang scenarios, nor would one fit in. Unless, as I think Vic Stenger has said, the universe would be the same with or without said god's actions, ha ha!
If we go the direction of excluding explanations that fit observed data "on principle" instead of continuing to test those observations, then we will back ourselves into a sort of flat-earther corner if one of those explanations is correct. And we will attract mainly people who reject evidence in favor of ideology, eventually.
I feel extremely confident that the universe is material and without a basis for absolute ethics. There's really nothing in any of the current theories that would turn that upside down.
There is no way to _ever_ stop supernaturalists from misunderstanding or twisting evidence around. The New Agers do stuff like take Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as implying that we can stop the fires in Australia by concentrating on them at the same time. Or that because elements that compose our bodies are constantly interchanging with the environment-- as I think Dawkins said, there's a high chance that a glass of water today contains a molecule that once passed through Oliver Cromwell-- this proves we are all one person, tada!
That level of woo-woo ness is impossible to prevent, so it's a waste of time to even consider, IMO.