Our Websites

Help! I’m Learning the Big Bang In Class

Q: “Dr. Hovind, We just started the school year, and the first chapter deals with how the universe began ‘billions of years ago’ with the ‘big bang.’ The authors teach it like it is a fact and they saw it happen! What do I do?”

Remember, you are not trying to attack evolution or get creation into schools. You just don’t want anyone to use lies as evidence or pass off fairy tales as science. Here are some questions to ask the teacher. It may be OK to ask these in class if you can ask them without sounding cocky.

“Teacher, this textbook doesn’t explain where the matter for the big bang came from. What banged? Isn’t it a giant assumption to say the matter was just there? Are there any good scientific explanations for the origin of matters?”

Just listen and write down his answer. Follow up with more questions on the topic if you can naturally—without seeming to be driving the point home; but eventually it will probably be evident that the origin of matter for the big bang is believed, not known scientifically. The other students (and probably the teacher) will start to see that the big bang is more religion than science.

Next, ask where the energy came from to compress it and explode it. There is a lot of energy in the universe! Where did it come from?

Listen and record the answers. Also ask if there are any resources that he knows about where you could look for answers to your questions. Do that periodically through the year, so he will know you are really interested in the subject, not just looking for a fight.

Third, ask where the laws like gravity, inertia, and centrifugal force came from.

You will be able to see that people only believe all this stuff: it is really not science. Be very careful with your tone of voice. Ask sincerely and humbly. Use good judgment and ask God to guide you whether this should be done in class, or privately after class. OK?

Further Study

Help! I'm Being Taught Evolution

Help! I’m Being Taught Evolution In My Earth Science Class!
A resource with practical steps for confronting evolution in the classroom.
Book or Download

,

Leave23 Responses to testHelp! I’m Learning the Big Bang In Class

  1. Jay Liemowitz September 9, 2010 at 8:45 am #

    Kent, I think you should just start a blog entitled “Help, I’m being taught!” and leave it at that. Is promoting ignorance really what you aim to achieve here?

    After all, why should someone need help when being taught something? Is it so dangerous to be informed? Even if what you’re being taught ends up being false, it’s still useful to understand the subject, else you really couldn’t know if it’s false or not. Learning, is never a bad thing, that is, if truth is really what you seek. I suppose if indoctrination is what you’re after, you’re doing a fine job.

    If you are correct, then you have nothing to worry about. Instead of giving your followers advice on how to abstain from learning a subject, perhaps you should encourage them to learn all they can about it, if only so they can be better equipped to demonstrate to others why it’s false.

    In the end, ignorance is only useful in suppressing the truth. I encourage all of those reading this, creationist or otherwise, to learn all they can on every subject they can get their hands on. That includes those who accept evolution and the big bang theory to learn all they can about creationism. How can we ever come to know what’s real if we spend our time suppressing ideas and/or remaining willfully ignorant on anything that challenges us to question ourselves?

  2. Jeremey Chinshue September 9, 2010 at 8:53 am #

    So I asked my Earth Science professor how the other elements came into being after Iron (cause you know, fusion stops there), and he, told me;

    “The Big Bang was SOOOOOOOO powerful, that it created every other element in less than a second.”

    And I was flabbergasted.

  3. Jack Napper September 9, 2010 at 9:56 am #

    “Teacher, this textbook doesn’t explain where the matter for the big bang came from. What banged? Isn’t it a giant assumption to say the matter was just there? Are there any good scientific explanations for the origin of matters?”

    FACEPALM

    I suggest picking up an actual text book and reading about the ‘Big Bang Theory’. The theory makes no comments on the origins of “what was there before” or “how it got there”. As has been explained to you Hovind, the Big Bang was the origin of matter. Quite frankly you fictional question doesn’t really deal with your apparent ignorance of the theory.

    “Next, ask where the energy came from to compress it and explode it. There is a lot of energy in the universe! Where did it come from?”

    FACEPALM.

    See the response above.

    “Third, ask where the laws like gravity, inertia, and centrifugal force came from.”

    I’ll ask you to look up the definition of the ‘laws of science’.

  4. Nigel McNaughton September 9, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    The Origin of Matters?

    Once they say ‘I don’t know, that’s not what The Big Bang explains’ they will ask if you have any relevant questions. Or they could ask you ‘where does God come from?’

    Then they will probably go into the evidence that led Christians like Georges Lemaître to hypothesis The Big Bang, and then the evidence that Hubble and others collected that provided the evidence that it was correct.

  5. Mike Ayala September 9, 2010 at 7:59 pm #

    Dear Dr. Hovind,

    Thank you for your awesome practical guidance. My son, age 9, just started a new school where evolution is alive and well. We were discussing this just today. Thank you for your timely advice. I will forward this page to him.

    God bless and protect you and fill you with all His joy and love by His Spirit.

    Mike Ayala

  6. Joakim Rosqvist September 10, 2010 at 3:00 am #

    >> Teacher, this textbook doesn’t explain …

    As nobody can keep track of everything that is known about every subject, scientific theories have scopes that set boundaries for what part of reality they are addressing. You would not accuse a cooking book for not explaining how you are supposed to acquire the ingredients it lists by each recipe. The Big Bang theory deals with what happened *after* the big bang event. When/if why find a way to observe events leading up to the big bang, there will be a new scientific theory to handle that.

    >> .. where the matter for the Big Bang came from.

    Matter comes from energy, that can be readily observed in particle accelerators. The mystery is where the energy came from.

    >> Isn’t it a giant assumption to say the matter was just there?

    Isn’t is an even gianter assumption to say that a superadvanced deity just happened to be around to create the matter?

    >> Third, ask where the laws like gravity, inertia, and centrifugal force came from.

    Through science we learn such things one small step at a time. Electricity and magnetism has been shown to be two faces of the same coin, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force were shown to have the same origin in the 1960’s, and we expect to link that electroweak force to the strong nuclear force using particle accelerators before long. It is perfectly ok to say “I don’t know” to questions that has not yet found a useful answer.
    Declaring an arbitrary statement from an old book to be “the truth” is easy, but finding out how the world works by actually examining the world takes more effort and patience, but is eventually more rewarding.

  7. Duane September 10, 2010 at 2:47 am #

    Scientists actually observe, hypothesize, test, theorize, test, model, test, do the math, etc. to come to an understanding of reality the best they can. Nothing in science is ever said to be absolute. If a better explanation comes along that explains better and accounts for why the previous explanation worked, then science is willing to throw out the old and in with the new. Look at Einstein and Newton.

    You keep calling Science a “religion”, like it’s a bad thing. What you are doing is drawing a false equivalence. Science does its best to describe reality through observation and testing. What it doesn’t do is take the word of Bronze Age desert schizophrenics and assert that they had the correct and final answer to life, the universe and everything.

    I have to know, what does centrifugal force have to do with the Big Bang? I’ve heard you mention it in your lectures, but I’ve never heard ANY scientist mention it. The Big Bang didn’t “spin”, and no one says it did. Regardless, it has nothing to do with why the earth spins or orbits. The earth (and everything on it) was the product of a supernova explosion, therefore we are second generation star material. We didn’t form directly from the Big Bang or any supposed spin from it. Somehow, I find that much more impressive and beautiful, that we are literally star stuff.

    Here’s another point. When your answer is that we were magicked into being by an invisible sky daddy, then you kind of lose your right to be credulous of real scientists and science. You dismiss nearly all science and evidence, but someone rolling around on the ground speaking in tongues is enough to convince you that Christianity is real.

  8. andrew Ryan September 10, 2010 at 7:18 am #

    Eric, the Big Bang is the best theory we currently have for the start of the universe. It makes no assumption about the existence or otherwise of God. It is simply what looks like most likely happened, given the evidence we currently have. Finding definitive proof of a God’s existence wouldn’t affect that evidence, it would just mean that the Big Bang was the method that God used to start the universe.

    Now, if better evidence comes along supporting another theory, then that is what will be adopted in classes. If you think you have better evidence, go ahead and present it! After all, that’s how Penzias and Wilson won their Noble prizes for Physics.

    There are many reasons that the Big Bang is supported by evidence – did you take the time to research the evidence before giving your above answer?

    By the way, some of your questions have very interesting answers, and should provoke interesting discussions in class that will hopefully broaden the students understanding of the theory. For other questions the answer is currently ‘we just don’t know (at this point)’. But that doesn’t invalidate the Big Bang theory, it just means more work needs to be done. In the meantime, the theory remains the best explanation we have.

  9. younger brother September 11, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    I am yet again amazed at the level of hostility within these commenting areas. I truly don’t mean to come across as abrasive to anyone in what I am about to say. Also, I am relatively new to these blogs and enjoy them as stimulating intelligent conversation. Although I have not read all of the blogs, I have been trying to keep up on the most recent ones from the last couple of weeks. I try to approach the blogs and the comments in a logical and intellectual way. If I come across a post I disagree with I try to read it objecticvely and I try to reason my way through with the commenter in their arguments. Furthermore, I try to evaluate whether or not the comments are themselves logical and credible. I then try to reflect and see if there is anything I have or can learn from it. I even try to see if it requires me to change my throughts on a matter from time to time. After that I try to respond (not react) logically and thoughtfully if I feel strongly enough about it.

    However, I’ve observed that most posters here in support of evolution don’t seem to be doing the same. So far I have observed far more creationist posters here use real and valid logical/scientific arguments than evolutionists do here. Furthermore, most of what I have seen is that the creationist posters are more likely to respond to the posts of evolutionists with thoughtfull and intellectual reflection. On the other hand, most posts from evolutionists seem to be reactions rather that responses to the creationist posts. Worse than that is that the evolutionists’ posts are full of statements and insults (a logical falacy of ad-homonim in itself) without logical or scientific reasoning to show how they came about their conlusions against the creationist posts.

    In short, so far I have observed that the creationists here, more often than not, truly respond to the evolutionists or make their own statements/conclusions while providing real logical arguments and scientific reasoning for them. The evolutionists however, more often than not, have made claimes without such argumentation, support, evidence or reasoning. Where is the intelligent discussion?!

    So far, I have seen creationists’ comments attacked with statments and conlusions simmilare to: “well you’re wrong so there!” without any reasoing to show how those conclusions refute what was said or how those conclusions were reached in the first place! It’s making me wonder if the evolutionists here have actually read some of the comments thoughtlfully in order to accedemically/intellectually respond.

    I am frustrated, and I’m sure that comes out in this post’s tone, this is not an attack on anyone but rather extream frustration with the lack of intellectual discussion and reasoning on the part of one side of these conversations namely: the evolutionists. I encourage the evolutionists to logically examine why these posts make them so upset. Ask yourself why? Ask yourself if some of the detailed creationist comments and responses to your posts make sense, why or why not? Why are you criticizing some of the creationists and their conclusions (for which they have well logically/scientifically reasond) but are not using reason, logic, and support for the claims you have made against them nor for the conclusions in your own posts.

    My point is this, if you scrutinize the logical arguments that have been made and can not fault them after true reflection, it is far more intellectual to learn something from them or even accept the conclusions than it is to attack them with statements and conclusions of great emotion with no support to show how you came to those conclusions. I’ve read a lot of essentially: “you’re dumb and don’t understand” from the evolutionists in these posts. These are illogical and often arrogant reactions to some very well reasoned staments by creationist commentors, instead of responses that explain with reason and support why the creationist’s statement or conclusion is false/wrong ect.

    On a side note, I appologize Duane, I hope you did this unintentionally, but no where on this web site nor within Eric’s organization will you find them referring to science as religion. The CSE position is that evolution is a religion. And as a question of origins it is by definition at least a world veiw assumption and within the realm of metaphysics. Whether you meant to or not you set up a straw man and beat it senseless without accomplishing an intellectual thing.

  10. younger brother September 11, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    Will this too be ignored?

  11. Joe Shlabotnik September 12, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    Younger Brother,

    You must be reading a different blog than I. There have been many reasonable responses to Eric’s and Kent’s statements.

    If you look at Duane’s comment above, he raises some very salient and rational points and is not the least bit abrasive. Perhaps you are a bit thin skinned?

    You may want to consider the advice given by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

    “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”

    Next,

    Jeremey Chinshue
    September 9th at 8:53 am

    “So I asked my Earth Science professor how the other elements came into being after Iron (cause you know, fusion stops there),…….”

    This is an example of a half truth that is absurd.

    Fusion reactions power the stars and produce all elements through nucleosynthesis. Although the fusion of lighter elements in stars releases energy, production of elements heavier than iron absorbs energy.

  12. sdb2jpb@yahoo.com September 12, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    For future reference, the following is not a valid argument:
    “I do not understand X. Therefore, X is not necessarily true.”
    Nor is this a valid argument:
    “I do not understand how someone can know X. Therefore, X is not necessarily true.” Or, “Therefore, X is unknowable.”

  13. Nigel McNaughton September 12, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Well younger brother, if that is your real name, you have to overlook a lot of explanatory posts to pretend that people aren’t posting detailed explanations and merely resorting hostile attacks.

    A significant number of these blog entries are repeating debunked myths and fallacies i the first place.

    Remember we can’t link to anything, so our ability to present offsite evidence is limited (deliberately).

    Also a lot of people posts are being deleted without notice, so that causes frustration.

    Take a look at a poster like Julie, she will post stories that even Answers in Genesis say “Don’t use! It’s not true!” and when pointed out she simply responds that we are using ad hom and we can’t prove it didn’t happen.

    And then there is Mike who doesn’t read what I say and simply repeats his talking points over and over again.

  14. Jeff Brace September 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. –Mohandas Gandhi

  15. Mike Ayala September 12, 2010 at 6:18 pm #

    Joakim Rosqvist September 10th at 3:00 am

    Not only does God “keep track of everything that is known about every subject”, but He created everything that science could ever hope to observe.

    It is a red herring to claim that it “is an even gianter assumption to say that a superadvanced deity just happened to be around to create the matter”. Those whom Jesus has loved and washed from their sins in His own blood have direct communication with the Creator. The how’s and why’s of God’s existence are secondary to the fact that all who are created by Him are subject to His justice and judgment. One may exist in Hell (“the lake of fire” for you theologians) for eternity for worrying about the how’s and why’s of God’s existence and failing to respect and answer His direct communication from outside of this little bubble in eternity called time.

    It is extreme irony that evolutionists base their lives and eternities on many “arbitrary statement[s] from an old book” written by Darwin which is devoid of “the truth”, especially since the founding fathers of modern science based their lives on the Word of God, and their endeavors in science were the result of their belief in God and an attempt to better understand His creation.

    Joakim, why don’t you try a little objectivity in your posts?

    Remember, Jesus loves you, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. So please take some time to examine the irrepressible truth of the phenomenon of the Word of God. You will not be able to objectively examine it without being blessed by it.

    Grace and blessings to you.

    Mike Ayala

  16. Mike Ayala September 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    younger brother September 11th at 3:57 pm

    PS: To answer your question why the hostile childish response for the evolutionists, it’s because they do not have an intelligent answer to the arguments presented to them, so they resort to ridicule, character assassination, and (no other way to say it) stupidity as substitutes for intelligent informed discussion. I think pride also is a big factor in this. They are unwilling to accept God’s sovereignty over their life. Thus, they end up rejecting the very thing for which their heart longs the most.

  17. Mike Ayala September 12, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    younger brother September 11th at 3:57 pm

    Amen! That is very well said, and will certainly not be ignored, at least not by those who have a love of the truth. The others, well, it will probably ring in their ears for eternity when they reflect back upon the error of their ways.

    God bless you and fill you with His Spirit that you overflow with all His wisdom and understanding.

    Mike Ayala

  18. Dale Evjen September 12, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    younger brother,

    Looks like they ignored you. I have to agree with your post.

    These evilutionists just can not seem to get it! It might have something to so with 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 or Matthew 13:14-16 where Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9,10.

    Of course quoting from the Bible just won’t do for these guy either. You’d think that some of the prophecies that foretell that there would be this exact attitude toward things of God would cut through the static in their minds!

  19. Jack Napper September 13, 2010 at 2:44 am #

    “However, I’ve observed that most posters here in support of evolution don’t seem to be doing the same.”

    What? This is going to be rather interesting. So you’re saying that ‘evolution supporters’ aren’t reading logical fallacies, blatant unsupported assertions, scriptures and Pascal wager style rhetoric logically?

    “So far I have observed far more creationist posters here use real and valid logical/scientific arguments than evolutionists do here. ”

    Example please. Please show me a post which does not contain a glaring example of logical fallacies. Show me one that contains good science. In fact I’ll make it easy for you. show me one that doesn’t include a copy and paste pseudoscience silliness that’s been debunked yet rehashed. Show me where a creationist attempts to prove Creation (or ID Creation) correct scientifically rather than using a false dichotomy or begging the question.

    “Furthermore, most of what I have seen is that the creationist posters are more likely to respond to the posts of evolutionists with thoughtfull and intellectual reflection.”

    Excuse me? Please provide an example.

    “On the other hand, most posts from evolutionists seem to be reactions rather that responses to the creationist posts. Worse than that is that the evolutionists, posts are full of statements and insults (a logical falacy of ad-homonim in itself) without logical or scientific reasoning to show how they came about their conlusions against the creationist posts.”

    Example please. You also seem to misunderstand what an ad-hom is. It’s when you attack the arguer rather than the argument. If I slap an insult at the tale of utterly destroying an argument that’s NOT an ad-hom.

    “In short, so far I have observed…….”

    Is a bunch of made up falsehoods in an effort to commit another logical fallacy. APPEAL TO EMOTION.

  20. Mark James September 13, 2010 at 4:59 am #

    The big issue here is not that Kent has suggested questions the student should ask, but that the questions have to be asked by the student in the first place. If the teacher was truly teaching the subject scientifically and honestly then he/she would have to mention some of the contradictions. The same teacher will probably at some stage teach the first and second laws of thermodynamics, it would only seem right to mention in passing that the big bang theory has to ignore these laws if it is to explain the universe as we know it.

    Jay suggests that Kent is doing a fine job of indoctrination. I would suggest that in this blog he is doing quite the opposite. According to my dictionary indoctrination is the act of teaching uncritically. Kent is encouraging the student to question what is being taught and to challenge the indoctrination.

  21. andrew Ryan September 13, 2010 at 10:26 am #

    “I encourage the evolutionists to logically examine why these posts make them so upset.”

    Younger brother, you seem to be reading different posts to me. Creationists are the ones making posts simply stating “Stupid evilutionists”, whereas we are calmly pointing out the factual errors in Kent and Eric’s blogs. Check out the ‘evolutionary scientists’ quotes’ blog next to this one. We’ve pointed out that most of the quotes are made up. In response, no creationist has offered a single refutation or source. The only thing they’ve offered is insults, or further erroneous claims.

  22. Amanda Ashley-Edmond September 13, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    You have to bite the bullet so-to-speak, just suck it up, and learn it. How will you be able to “fight” for creation, if you don’t know your enemy (evolution)? The only way to take down you’re enemy is to know everything about him.

  23. David McCrea September 14, 2010 at 2:46 am #

    younger brother, I agree with your observations.

    Evolutionists tend to debate by denying, deflecting and diminishing. The terms “straw man” and “illogical fallacy” are used as a way to end the discussion. The denial part is especially puzzling. They don’t subscribe to spontaneous generation; it’s somehow a construct of creationists? WHAT? According to the atheists, every essential tenet of atheistic evolution (be it the big dud, spontaneous generation, even macro-evolution) are straw man ad hominem illogical fallacies invented by or maligned by those crazy superstitious creationists. WHAT? They can’t even be honest and admit what they really believe. Notice how they spend more time trying to convince us what they DON’T believe rather than what the DO believe.

    C’mon guys. You believe nothing created everything, something dead became alive (there’s two miracles right there), and this first simple organism went on to become Socrates, Plato, Abraham Lincoln and Richard Dawkins. You believe it’s easier for something dead to come alive than it is for something dead to stay dead, and that brainless macro-evolution is responsible for the tremendous diversity of life on our planet. Or is that another “straw man” based on “illogical fallacy?”

    Here’s my question to all you devout atheistic evolutionists. What did man evolve from? And what did that evolve from? And what did that evolve from? Or how about this. Play the same evolutionary backtrack game with every living creature on the planet. Play the game ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE BEGINNING LIFE FORM. And please be sure to describe this beginning life form in detail.

    It should be an easy game. After all, you’re willing to bet your eternity on the answer.