Never heard of the dude, but whatever. This is completely irrelevant unless he can explain WHY he rejects the science. If he has proper evidence that the big bang and evolution didn't happen the way scientists think based on the data, why doesn't he publish this new evidence in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.