Whereas science can attempt to explain why people in past societies thought the way they did, any attempt to reconcile the opposing viewpoints can only expect superficial success. Because, essentially, the viewpoints are contradictory. It might be argued at a later stage whether we could include Hindhuism and Buddhism in this picture, because both these religions postulate something approaching an infinite universe. With Christianity, Islam and Judaism, on the other hand, science contradicts these religions in a most fundamental way.
You mention in your post the idea of time-reversability in QED. And it must be noted here that QED has been spectacularly successful. I would point out the sheer size of the superclusters in the models developed by Tully and also the recent discovery of iron in the early universe where none should be. The question seems to be at present: was there in fact a big bang?
It was argued as long ago as the early nineties that the big bang of creation is just another attempt to rewrite the book of Genesis, using quasi scientific arguements often wrapped up in spin. (Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened) And of course many years prior to that, Hoyle put forward some convincing arguements against the big bang in his philosophical book, The Intelligent Universe. (Please see Has the Universe Run Uphill, Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe.)
Science, it seems, has been walking arm in arm with religion for too long. The universe could, in fact, be infinite in time and space. And if that's the case then, of course. there wasn't an act of creation.
The arguement about whether protons decay is a case worthy of mention. The big bang predicts that protons should decay. Convinced that this is the case, scientists have set up detectors at the bottom of mine-shafts in the expectation of proving the point. But wishful thinking isn't science. And protons don't decay.
Best wishes, Paul