I don't find either account intuitively reasonable, at least with regards to the origins of the universe. But even with that, I'd have to admit that the people learning via the scientific method have a reliable pathway for understanding our world and universe. Ask religious people around the world about god and the universe, and you will get multitudes of explanations, many of which do not harmonize at all, even among those groups that claim to believe in the same god. They rely on guesswork, and without an agreed-upon method of learning what is true, each claim is as valid as any other.
Ask scientists around the world about the universe, and you will get a much tighter range of answers to any question, including quite a few admissions that there is much they have yet to discover. But what they have learned, they've done so through a rigid and agreed-upon method that helps --over the long term especially-- to weed out the kind of sloppy and biased approach that leaves religion with too many claims, and too few real answers. Speak with actual biologists, and you'll get a better understanding of how they got to where they are, and why they consider evolution to be so firmly established as to be beyond doubt. Do the same with astronomers, physicists, and so on, and you'll get the same response.
I have faith in that process. The same process that has brought us the endless stream of technological advancement that touches every aspect of our lives on such a level that we take it for granted these days. I cannot trust a process that has left the world divided into groups that cannot agree to a framework for determining who is right or who is wrong. Which uses the very same arguments to promote their religious beliefs, then ignores those same arguments to reject alternative religious beliefs.