A Big Bang Misconception

Which book is that? I've seen the exact same quote creditted as being HBJ General Science, 1989. Hovind uses that source as a slide in one of his seminars. By an amazing stroke of coincidence, Hovind paraphrases in a similar way:

quote:

---

What? Nothing exploded, and here we are? Explain that to me, would you please?

---

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. 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. 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. 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.

I appreciate why the early universe is of interest to chemists. However, I doubt that a brief outline of the physics and maths in a chemistry book will need to be highly accurate, and a synopsis so to speak would suffice. As I said, you should write to the authors with the (at least) two points of complaint.We cannot be upset at laymen who don't understand the theory, only at laymen who think they understand it enough to criticize it. And that's not the fault of college text books about chemistry. Most of that blame comes from the likes of Hovind who criticizes the theory as laid down in its simple form (I assume he, and other creationists, don't like tackling the maths) as if that were the real one. In debate parlance it would be a straw man.Why attack a strawman? A good orator can make a strawman defeat look like the real thing, but critical minds will investigate and realize it isn't.Its comparable to me reading a book about gravity saying that 'gravity causes things to drop when you let go' and then me to demonstrate gravity as absurd by pointing to planes, rockets, and baloons.

That's fine, and it is why I suggested you complain to the publishers. However - not all books are able to go into the evidence for the science that it builds upon, otherwise all books would be massively thick and impossible to read. From a chemistry point of view, saying that the universe came from a big bang is a sufficient grounding to start discussing the ideas behind early chemistry. Why make chemistry students get a physics degree before doing chemistry? If we take that to its absurd levels, you'd need a degree in physics and chemistry before attempting to get qualified in biology. It's left as an exercise for the student to go away and learn about cosmology if they want to learn in more depth, about the chemistry near the big bang. Not true at all. That's like saying that Holocaust deniers must be on to something, they're certainly not fantastically false, because people care about it. Moon-landing hoaxers likewise.There are other reasons people care about what Hovind says.1. He confirms what other people already believed.
2. He is a good orator and very persuasive
3. He allows people to feel smarter than 'scientists' who are 'dumb'
4. He tries to intellectually swindle people (Which people like myself despise).There are four reasons I thought of off the top of my head, none of which are dependent on the truth of what is said.

If you want to continue talking about Chemistry books and cosmology as well as whether or not having people care about something is some kind of veracity checker, then let me know and we'll continue the discussion.Edited by Modulous, : totally changed the content, since I wasn't happy at all with it