Ha ha. It is more important, and it's not. These questions of perception and existence are impossible to answer in a strictly objective fashion. Let's pretend there is a sentient ant, wondering about events at the planetary level. To the degree that it is merely a passive spectator, those events are absolutely uninteresting in comparison to the ant colony. We have the curse of knowing something interesting is happening in space involving infinite matter, incomprehensible distances, inconceivable levels of energy...but we're stuck in our finite planet, in our mundane forms.

John, Science can not prove nor disprove the existence of a diety nor, it should be stated, is that the goal of science. The Big Bang Theory, for example, does not describe the events that lead up to that moment and it is generally accepted by adherents to this theory that this was the starting point to time. As such, it falls in the realm of religion and philosophy to discuss and describe what happened outside of what science describes.
This is not to say that science holds exclusive reign over our existence and religion or philosophy has no place since the Big Bang , it merely seeks to uncover and explain what we have perceived thus far to be a universe with physical properties that obey what appear to be laws, laws we describe with the word "physics".
To paraphrase Stephen Hawking, God could have chosen to make this universe in a random or arbitrary manner and have it obey no rule at all. Instead, God seemingly did so by creating -- or adhering to -- a set of rules that can be observed, tested, predicted and proven to some degree.
However, a theory is just that; it is not fact. It must hold up to the scrutiny of all observers, explain a particular facet of an observation and be able to predict with accuracy the results of a given test described within the scope of the theory. So far, the Big Bang Theory works and works well.
This video is outstanding in illustrating the premise of The Big Bang Theory and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (Mentioned to make my post relevant to the video. :)
One conflict a scientist might observe with a 6,000 year old universe is the sheer mass of our Sun compared to how much fuel it burns per second; this tells us how much longer it has to go. When we compare the luminosity and composition to other stars, we are capable of aging our own by comparison. In truth, our sun is nothing special and is a rather common sort.
Again, there's no reason to believe that science is out to squash religion. If one had to believe in both God and study physics of any sort, one might say you're simply observing the rules God created by which the universe runs.
The two can co-exist rather peacefully.