Chemistry, 6th edition; Houghton Mifflin 2003
I wonder how accurate we'd expect a chemistry book to be when discussing cosmology. If that quote is in there (and I remain skeptical, as a result of the coincidences outlined above), you should write to them with two complaints:
1: They uplifted at least an entire paragraph from a book that precedes it by
fourteen years. Not even a physics or chemistry science book but a general science book. This is simply not acceptable.
2: The information they present does not accurately reflect what the relevant scientists in the appropriate fields have said.
He's right to be leary of such a pernicious theory being taught as fact
Fortunately, Hovind's theory of the Big Bang isn't really taught to anyone other than as an instructional aid. That is, rather than talking kids through advanced concepts of 4 dimensional space and the consequences of relativity, we just give them the quick layman's concept.
In any case, perhaps a crusade to correct antiquated theories should be in order.
Well, relativity is old now, but if you feel the need to correct it, by all means go ahead. What might be more productive is a crusade against poorly worded text books.
The OP seems peeved that people actually think that the Big Bang was not the product of an energy speck, but the problem lays wholly with the people that print the material. Its not the laymans fault that they didn't know any better.
Agreed, but the problem isn't with layman not knowing better, it's with layman thinking that the simplified version they learned about is a sufficient base from which to criticize the theory. I certainly don't feel qualified to have an opinion on the Big Bang, and I've taken the time to read about it in more depth than an average layman.