Why can't science consider a "rules" creator as they do randomness equally plausible for creation?

While randomness may indeed be the path towards creation in our universe, like pushing a boulder down a hill and having it continue to roll under its own momentum, the parameters and rules needed to make this happen do not appear random at all. In fact, the odds of having all the dozens of parameters set in place exactly right to make an initial creation occur miserably fails any test of statistical significance. How can anyone in the science community support this idea without gutting their own credibility?