First, my fellow Christians need to understand that the "Big Bang" and "Evolution" are not only different, but aren't even really connected at all. Evolutionary theory is about the origin and development of life. The "Big Bang Theory" is about the development of the structure of the universe itself.
And, as far as it goes, most of the theory about the Big Bang is not really out of sync with the Bible, especially the passage you reference.
HEB 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (NIV)
Now, the BB theory also states that what formed the universe could not have been seen. As a singularity (not really "particle" as some like to say) it would not have been visible to the naked eye, and possibly not to any instrument we could ever invent. It would have had all the mass of the universe compressed into an infinitesimal space. Truly, it would have been quite invisible for the same reason a black hole is invisible ... light could never have escaped its gravitational field.
The difference here is the origin of that singularity. For the Christian, the origin of that singularity is the Command of Almighty God. For those who do not believe in Him ... well, the origin of that singularity is a big mystery. In addition, what made that singularity suddenly "explode". Again, for the Christian, the answer is easy. For the unbeliever, I'm not sure if there is an answer.
As you follow through the creation story in Genesis, you get a fairly good picture of the BB. First, God created "The Heavens and The Earth". He brings space itself into existence. Before the singularity exploded, even space/time, as we understand it, did not exist. God had to create this first. Thus Genesis makes the assertion that "in the beginning, God created The Heavens and The Earth".
But in Genesis 1:2 we see that the earth is still "formless" and "void". It uses the word "waters" and "deep", but I wonder if this is not symbolic of dense gas coalescening.
At any rate, we must remember that ancient Hebrew story telling is not as chronologically linear as modern, western story telling. Thus, Gen 1:3, which states "And God said, 'Let there be light'", does NOT necessarily follow Gen 1:2 chronologically as we modern, westerners would naturally assume.
Instead, it is just as likely that Gen 1:1 - 1:2 is saying, "Here's what happened" and Gen 1:3 - 31 is saying, "Here's how". This is quite common in Hebrew story telling and we see the same thing happen with the account of mankind's creation given in Gen 1:26-31, and then AGAIN in Gen 2:4-25.
Now, as to the actual account, we see light being the first thing created. Well, in BB theory, we know that the first thing released was pure energy. Certainly, "light" would be the best way to describe this to humans living in ancient times, and really quite accurate. The only difference between visible light and all the other forms of EM radiation (such as radio-waves or gamma rays) is frequency. Gama rays are, essentially, just very high frequency light. This makes perfect sense.
And at first, this "light" would have flooded every part of the universe. Only later did God "separate the light from the darkness". Some have theorized that this is when God placed a "speed limit" on light.
Now, some of the passages in Genesis itself require a non-literal interpretation even from a "Sola-Scriptura" standpoint. I'm sorry, but even without the BB or Darwin, Genesis ITSELF simply does not support a completely literal interpretation.
Case in point: A "Day" is one revolution of the Earth in relation to it's sun, correct? But Genesis records the passing of three "days" before God even MAKES the sun on the fourth day. So, an overly literal interpretation of creation simply is not supported by the internal witness of the sacred text of Genesis itself. There MUST be something non-literal being said here.
A non-literal interpretation of Genesis is nothing new, and dates back to ancient times. Even early Christian theologians, such as Augustine, who died in 430 AD and who was actually AT the Third Council of Carthage when the Biblical Cannon was established, did not always interpret Genesis literally. I have only begun reading his commentary on the matter, and while I don't agree with it all, it is quite insightful.
http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf
So, when you ask, "Can I agree with science when it comes to the Big Bang", do remember that the scientific community does not yet agree 100% on a single BB theory, and probably never will. On the basic idea that the universe came into being in an instant, energy first and then forming the matter we now have, I don't see anything in scripture that would contradict that. I would only assert that the Hand and Word of God were active in every part and moment of it.