After finishing explaining a several decade-old version of the big bang theory, they replay the opening sequence of the Strauss piece again, and some text comes up. The text is a version of the Kalam Cosmological argument, which goes something like this.
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist.
- The universe has a cause.
The first premise has never been established to be true in any sense, and in fact with the current state of quantum physics, it appears that quantum particles jump in and out of existence all the time with no apparent cause. Needless to say, 'beginning to exist' is something that has never been observed, and in fact violates the first law of thermodynamics.
The second premise is stated as a fact by creationists, but does not reflect the reality of current scientific views regarding the big bang. There is nothing within big bang theory to suggest that the universe began to exist, or that at some point it didn't exist. Regardless, we currently have no way of examining anything that happened 'before' the big bang.