I thought I'd write some short responses to the claims made in the video, just for the fun of it.
We as a creation are a result of the Big Bang, which brought the Universe into existence
The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe came into existence. It just postulates that at one point the entire universe was a singularity that expanded. Where that singularity came from is not explained by that theory.
and we are the result of evolution, which brought life into existence
No, biological evolution does not explain how life came into existence. It works on already existing life (in other words, self-replicating organisms). How life came into existence is a different field of science.
To begin with, the Big Bang did not start with an explosion. The Big Bang started long before. Before the explosion there was a primordial dust cloud, a dust cloud in the nothingness of space, which drew together as a massive hyperdense core of mass and energy, and it was that that exploded.
Where is he getting this from?
(It seems to me that he doesn't understand what the expansion of the universe means, and he is confusing the Big Bang with something else completely, perhaps the formation of stars? I wonder if he has been listening to Kent Hovind.)
If there's one thing we know from science, it's that we do not get something from nothing.
I'm surprised he didn't mention the first law of thermodynamics in this context. Anyways, AFAIK there's no law of physics that says that. There are conservation laws which a) only state that the overall amount of something must be retained, and b) apply to the inside of this universe (iow. we don't know if this applies to a possible "meta-universe", if there is such a thing). Even inside this universe things like virtual particle pairs do not break these conservation laws, even though they appear from "nothing".
And yet we are to believe that this supposedly random event resulted in the perfection of the universe as we know it?
The anthropic principle.
(It's not inconceivable that universes are popping into existence (possibly in pairs) all the time, all with slight random variations of energy and physical properties, the vast majority resulting in only empty "bubbles" of chaotic energy, only a few of them having any kind of actual structure in them. Ours just happened to have the properties to, barely, form life as we know it. And now we are wondering how this is possible; iow. the anthropic principle. This is not necessarily what happened, but it's not inconceivable.)
whereas any other explosion results in destruction and chaos
Actually supernovas result in new heavier elements to be formed, which in turn form planetary nebulas, which in turn form planets... Not all explosions result in "destruction and chaos" in the long run.
This is an example where science contradicts science.
No, it's an example where pseudoscience contradicts science.
In science there's a general principle called entropy. Entropy is the principle that unless there's a greater control over a process, the process tends to chaos.
No. Entropy is a thermodynamic property that can be used to determine the energy available for useful work in a thermodynamic process. The overall entropy of a closed system never decreases. In other words, the ability of the closed system to do useful work never increases. (This is actually easy to understand because if this weren't so, it would mean that a closed system could produce more energy than it contains.)
The laws of thermodynamics do not talk about any "greater control". They only talk about energy and closed systems.
Also, the principle applies to the closed system in its entirety. In other words, the overall entropy never decreases. That doesn't mean that entropy couldn't decrease in localized parts of the system (as long as it increases by at least that much somewhere else in the system). This means that the amount of useful work can increase dramatically in one part of the system, and it will not contradict the law.
It does not matter whether you are talking about ... a complex chemical reaction. If it's not under control, it degenerates into chaos.
Let's see an example: We have a droplet of water. It's an amorphous blob where molecules are not ordered in any way. It loses energy in the form of heat (completely in accordance to entropy increasing), so much so that it freezes. What happens? A beautiful, highly organized and multiple-axis-symmetric snowflake, with clear structures, and much more ordered than the amorphous blob of water. Nobody was controlling this. Why is it not more chaotic?
but we are to believe that the massive explosion of the Big Bang resulted in perfection?
In the same way as the snowflake forming from an amorphous blob of water. Losing energy does not always mean that chaos increases.
If you look at something, you know where it came from. If you look at a painting, you know there was a painter. If you look at a sculpture, you know there was a sculptor. If you look at a building you know there was an architect and a construction company.
Somebody has been listening to Ray Comfort, is seems.
There are also highly-structured forms in nature that we know were not directly created by a conscious intelligence, but are the result of natural processes (and we understand those processes and how they work). (You can argue that somebody created those natural processes, but that's a completely different issue. A highly-ordered structure doesn't necessarily have to been directly created by a conscious being.)
Natural selection can explain a lot of things. It can explain the diversity of species, it can explain the fossil record, it can explain where the dinosaurs came from and where they went to, but how can you explain where the soul came from?
Not all of the world's scientists over the history of mankind, if you brought them all together, can not make them live.
A bit over 100 years ago not all of the world's scientists could make a machine fly. That doesn't mean it's impossible. It just means we haven't developed the necessary science and technology yet.