Standard theory of the big bang suggests that time and space themselves were created or appeared at the big bang. If that is true, then there was no "before". There was no matter or element at this time since the energy density then and soon after was too high for atoms or even protons and neutrons to exist. We are talking here about time periods of 10 ^ -45 seconds or less.
Second, events in highly energetic environments such as the early Universe just after the big bang have been calculated from evidence gained by experiments with particle colliders and thermonuclear weapons. These calculations show that the overall chemical composition of the matter in the Universe should have been about 73% hydrogen, 25% helium and 2% lithium and boron. The nuclei of these atoms should have been formed about three minutes after the absolute start. Astronomical observations show that this is still true, heavier elements make up only a tiny fraction of the matter in the Universe and all stars, which are by far the heaviest condensed single objects in the Universe are around 73% hydrogen and 25% helium. This is evidence that these events shortly after the absolute start did actually happen.
However, as physicists do not only admit but INSIST, they do not know what happened before this since the calculations go to infinite values at what is called the Planck time. The mathematics we have cannot handle infinite values.
Third, the ideas of membrane collisions proposed by string theorists are almost entirely hypothetical and may be correct, partly correct or wholly wrong. They are hypotheses based on very little physical evidence but a lot of mathematics as physicists are fully aware. While popular media reports may not give this impression, the scientists have almost no influence on what a journalist chooses to report or emphasise. However if the string theorists are correct or even partially correct it might mean the Universe has always existed in some form or another, that is, it is infinitely old already. That does not suit religious sensibilities either.
The only other theory of the origin of the visible Universe that came within a bull's roar of accounting for the evidence available was the "continuous creation" model proposed by Fred Hoyle around 1948. He proposed continuous creation of tiny amounts of matter, at the rate of a few atoms per cubic parsec per billion years. That might have been possible from quantum theory. That means that tiny amounts of space were created to accommodate the matter and that accounted for the observed expansion of the Universe. It also meant that the Universe was effectively infinitely old. Hoyle's model did not predict the cosmic microwave background which was accidentally discovered in 1964-65 by Penzias and Wilson and predicted by the big bang model. Penzias and Wilson were not looking for this microwave background, they found it as noise in their radio receivers when setting up an antenna for the immanent launch of communications satellites like Telstar. Since then it has been measured many times and satellite observations several years ago shows the agreement with theory is exquisite.
The idea that all the elements heavier than boron were cooked up in the internal processes of stars has been around for a long time, but until the 1950s nobody knew how it worked. Fred Hoyle guessed that the nuclear energy levels and resonances in carbon nuclei permitted the fusion of lighter elements to form carbon. At the time this was mostly hypothetical but it allowed calculation of a chain of reactions inside stars that could produce the heavier elements. Later his guess was found to be substantially correct and the pathways of many different fusion reactions have now been worked in in great detail. The subject is called "stellar nucleosynthesis" and the simpler parts of it are taught in first year college physics courses to prospective chemists, biologists and geologists. I was given lessons in it in the 1970s, it is not new.
In smaller stars like our Sun these processes lead only to iron, temperatures and pressures in such stellar cores do not reach the levels needed to produce heavier nuclei. However they do in larger stars and there are many of those. These stars may end their lives in a catastrophic collapse when the lighter fuels are exhausted, the internal temperatures and pressures soar beyond those needed to fuse heavier nuclei like iron together into heavier nuclei like gold and uranium. Some of these reactions are statistically improbable but still occur, and that is why some elements are more scarce than other. Most elements heavier than iron are quite rare. That is a direct consequence of the statistical improbablility of the reactions that lead to them.
The resulting rebound after the collapse of stars may be classed as a supernova when these heavier elements are released to space. Such stellar accidents and some less violent are common and are observed almost daily in our own galaxy and in other galaxies. One was naked-eye visible in one of the Magellanic clouds, which is a satellite minor galaxy nearby. I saw it in 1987.
That is what I know and remember about the big bang and stellar nucleosynthesis. They have nothing to do with Darwin's theory of the diversity of organisms except that they produced conditions in which organisms could exist. They also have nothing to do with "intelligent design" which was developed by the Discovery Institute several years ago.
The proposed big bang and the formation of our solar system are separate events. Our solar system is about a third the age of the visible Universe, it did NOT form in the big bang. The appearance or creation of life on Earth is not part of the theory of evolution or of evolution itself. Evolution only works on existing populations of organisms.
Confusion and conflation of these facts and theories is standard practice for creationist leaders who wish to keep the faithful ignorant and mixed up, since they are making a living from them. None of these facts and theories deny the possibility of some kind of god, but they do deny the ancient guesswork stories in old documents like Egyptian papyri, Sumerian clay tablets and Genesis.
There is no discussion between "intelligent design" as proposed by the Discovery Institute and scientists. Scientists do not waste their time arguing with deliberate and persistent liars like the Discovery Institute.