Wandering Eyes across the Entire Sky. Column in KomputerraOnline #22

Two individuals — a female biology student and a reader of Kompyuterra — asked my opinion of the film "Lies in the Name of Science" (2010), directed by one "Alexander Ivanov" (presumably a pseudonym). The question implies that the film may be regarded in various ways. I watched it. Well...
The film employs classic creationist argumentation drawing on arguments from the repertoire of Henry Morris (on him and "scientific creationism" — see here). It is essentially a digest of anti-evolutionary films that the Morrisites have produced in abundance, though this one is a Russian — rather than an overseas — product.
When speaking of creationism, one faces a certain difficulty: it appears to be bound up with faith, and one would not wish to emulate the early Komsomol members who spat upon icons. The point is not the sanctity of icons, but the reluctance to offend those whose convictions are sincere. While pondering how to write this column, I was gratified to discover that in my rejection of creationism I have allies among thoroughly Orthodox authors. Here is the diary of Alexei Vladimirovich Gomankov — an Orthodox scholar, Doctor of Palaeontology, and simply a reasonable man. His views and mine on "scientific creationists" are very close. So — attention, dear readers! — when I speak harshly about the film under discussion, I am not insulting faith, but only the charlatans of agitation.
A young male voice (not particularly articulate, but decidedly testosterone-laden) demolishes entire fields of knowledge in a matter of seconds. The film's author does not delve into details, contenting himself with references to Morrisite films. The film contains so many assertions that a complete analysis is impossible. By way of example, I shall take a passage from the very beginning — on the origin of the Universe. On the left is the film's narration; on the right are my comments.

The most popular model is the Big Bang theory.	Popularity is not the point. This model derives from theoretical principles whose consequences include, beyond the model itself, the design principles of nuclear power plants, lasers, light-emitting diodes, computers, communications satellites, etc.
It holds that approximately 20 billion years ago, all the matter of the Universe was concentrated in an extremely dense region, which could have been smaller than a point — that is, virtually nothing — about the size of an atom.	Less — 13.7 billion years. Matter did not become concentrated, for it simply did not exist yet. "The size of an atom" — there were no atoms at that time.
After which, for reasons unknown, it exploded, forming galaxies.	The causes of the "explosion" are being intensively studied. There are remarkably interesting ideas on this subject.
This is the opinion of scientists, as they call themselves.	What else should one call them? What is the purpose of this mockery?
I immediately have questions. Where did matter come from?	Its emergence is precisely what the Big Bang model describes. It is interesting — one ought to take the trouble to understand it.
Who created matter?	The question contains the assertion that matter was created by someone. No one did.
How did the space arise in which this point, this vacuum, existed?	Space exists within the Universe; speaking of the space in which the Universe itself exists is meaningless.
How, from the explosion of an atom,	And where did the atom come from in this line of reasoning? Ah — the author himself introduced it a moment earlier!
could so many substances have arisen — different elements, virtually the entire periodic table,	Shortly after the formation of the Universe, hydrogen emerged. From hydrogen comes helium, by virtue of the same thermonuclear mechanism that causes the Sun to shine, and then other light elements. Heavy elements are produced in supernova explosions and in collisions between atomic nuclei.
and on such a scale — several hundred thousand galaxies?	Many more than that!
How was the age determined?	These methods require thoughtful discussion.
I wonder — was anyone present for this?	By definition, no one was. Could the author not think of this himself and deduce it, or is he simply confusing his listeners?
Did anyone observe it?	Yes! Today one can observe objects located at distances of 12 billion light-years from us (that is, look at what existed 12 billion years ago) and confirm that the young Universe was exactly as the Big Bang model describes it. Moreover, one can "hear" (detect) the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is essentially the "echo" of the Big Bang.