Perhaps the problem is the name big bang that suggests an explosion that the name should be changed if the universe multiplied due to say an expansion. If scientists no longer agree it started with a bang then change the name, etc...
Good idea. Hard to do in practice, because individuals rarely get the chance to dictate phrases - once they get out there, they're difficult to control. Having seen this, I think there is more caution in naming things these days - but it isn't perfect. As humans we like certain phrases, even if they aren't accurate. We have a penchant for metaphor that is always going to be problematic.
The big bang can be seen as a set of cosmological theories. Some of the later names are less contentious. How do you prefer "
Inflationary Cosmology" for example?
Whats wrong with the universe started from a seed designed by God that this seed grew expanding faster than light and multiplying in space from say a seed the size of a pea, multiplying energy of say the vacuum energy of space (cashmier effect), to give shape to the universe like a mustard seed gives rise to an herb due cells multiplying thus in respect to the universe giving rise to galaxies multiplying.
What's right about it? Beats me, but a lot of thought has gone into philosophy and science and about how and when we can make confident statements about the way the universe works. One of the principle ideas that has stuck is parsimony - and God just adds replaces one unexplained/unexplainable problem with another.