After reading a bit on the matter from here
Quantum Diaries
I feel that I have a more structured answer to those who claim that
In a word, nope.
Cause and effect are not even quite a matter science deals with except perhaps indirectly by studying correlations and making speculative inferences... that are supposed to be challenged whenever possible, at that.
The text I linked above tells a bit about how the otherwise remarkable David Hume really made a mistake when he spoke of cause and effect. That may or may not be part of the reason why some theists insist that there is something scientific on the notion that there might be a supernatural creator.
But the notion itself is really not even barely connected to science, let alone supported - or even
supportable by it.
Cause and effect are a human bias. We live in an environment that rewarded us with better chances at survival for making that jump. Yet it often leads us to unwarranted assumptions and mistifications.
Science has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Cause and effect
may be established in science, but it is far rarer and more difficult than people who claim that it is a "major principle os science" realize. It takes experimental designs to test the hypothetical relationship - something that obviously isn't really possible when dealing with claims of creation of universes. I believe it is not even possible to establish causal relationships in human sciences.
Even leaving science aside, the theistic claims about the supposed convicing power of cause and effect suffer from other major flaws. They rarely if ever attempt to demonstrate how or why their claims should be taken over alternatives such as their supposed cause being in fact the effect, or both cause and effect being actually consequences of a third factor. Quite often even the basic statistical evidence of simple correlation (which is definitely not the same thing as evidence of a causal relationship) is weak at best.