Yes, this is something of a dilemma for science.
Big bang - but what before, a void?, a nothingness is unscientific, how can a bang cause something to explode into a nothingness, a void if the void does not exist.
Therefore the void, the 'space' into which big bang can expand must already exist. If it doesn't already exist then the big bang cannot expand into non existence. If the space already exists then when did it come into existence.
If it 'has always been around', in other words has always been in existence, well that is unscientific, everything has a beginning, the notion of 'always' or 'eternal' has no basis in science.
So if science is saying 'has always been there' then is it suggesting that either there is no start point for the void or space into which the universe began, or is it suggesting that this space or void could have been made from nothing, from non existence.
Hmm.. to make from nothing, do they call that creating?