Cosmos.

[Chino]

Mr. Wizard was awesome.


As you guys know, I am a huge NDT fan. I've been a fan of his way before he was even on the Daily Show for the first time. Now that I've watched the first three episodes of this reboot, I have to admit that I am very let down. Maybe it's because I consider the original Cosmos to be the greatest television series of all time, but I'm really not feeling this one. As most of you probably know, I am not a religious person by any means. I don't buy any of it. I used to be very hostile toward people with religious beliefs, but I am wayyyy more tolerant these days. I even listen to a religious radio show on the way home from work every day. I really don't like how many shots this new series has taken at people of religion (mainly Christians and Catholics). I know the occasional run in between the two is inevitable, but I don't remember Sagan taking shots (cheap ones at that) at people of belief nearly as much as in this reboot has. I feel like more punches have been thrown in the first three episodes than in the entire original series. The show seems to go out of its way to call out religion. It gives out an incredibly negative vibe, IMO. No wonder people get so upset with it. The show can't really expect to change peoples' minds by belittling them. That's not how Sagan did it, and I don't think this is how he would have wanted it to be done.

[gmillerdrake]

I really don't like how many shots this new series has taken at people of religion (mainly Christians and Catholics). I know the occasional run in between the two is inevitable, but I don't remember Sagan taking shots (cheap ones at that) at people of belief nearly as much as in this reboot has. I feel like more punches have been thrown in the first three episodes than in the entire original series. The show seems to go out of its way to call out religion. It gives out an incredibly negative vibe, IMO. No wonder people get so upset with it. The show can't really expect to change peoples' minds by belittling them. That's not how Sagan did, and I don't think this is how he would have wanted it to be done.

It's interesting that you mention this. I thought that maybe I was just looking too hard for religious 'jabs' given my beliefs because I did feel the presentation of information was condescending at times. But the reason I stopped watching the program after the second show wasn't due to any religious reasons....I just plain thought/think it hasn't been presented very well over all. I watched a few episodes of the old Sagan one as the re-ran it leading up to the new series premier and it was much more informative and interesting that the re-hash.

It's inevitable given the line in the sand that has been drawn as far as science vs religion that there would be some 'shots fired' so to speak. But as you mentioned, and it's true for both sides.....you can't expect to change minds or hope to enlighten an opposing point of view by firing the information at them with flaming aarows. 

[Neon]

I'm in love with this show.  And not for the reasons most people would think. 

I love educational TV but really the best part about this show is this guy's voice- it's the perfect sleepytime show.  I want to record it and play it over and over again while I sleep.  It's so soothing. 

[Theme Dreater]

We need a younger generation more excited about science.

You'd be happy to know that my 6 year old requests nothing but science related books from me when I do book shopping about once a month and near every book he brings home from the school library is either a exploration of the human body, dinosaur or a "space" book. It's funny because he literally said to me last night when I was reading the latest book he checked out of the library...."I love science". Now, his idea of science is still pretty broad but he just loves learning about that stuff. He wasn't satisfied with the books two page explanation of the respiratory system either. I did the best I could to try and expand on it but I have a feeling that as he gets older my explanations won't be good enough either and he's just going to figure it out all on his own.  The kid asks some questions that I'd be willing to bet a lot of 6 year olds could care less or haven't even thought about. He's just curious about how everything works...

Excellent! My nieces, age 6 and 3, both ask me a lot of questions about how things work and I'm always delighted to tell them how the moon works or why fire goes up. I think people like Sagan and Tyson are right when they say things like all kids are born scientists and continue to be curious. Unless, of course, that desire to know gets beaten out of them at a young age.

[Dr. DTVT]

Mr. Wizard was awesome.


As you guys know, I am a huge NDT fan. I've been a fan of his way before he was even on the Daily Show for the first time. Now that I've watched the first three episodes of this reboot, I have to admit that I am very let down. Maybe it's because I consider the original Cosmos to be the greatest television series of all time, but I'm really not feeling this one. As most of you probably know, I am not a religious person by any means. I don't buy any of it. I used to be very hostile toward people with religious beliefs, but I am wayyyy more tolerant these days. I even listen to a religious radio show on the way home from work every day. I really don't like how many shots this new series has taken at people of religion (mainly Christians and Catholics). I know the occasional run in between the two is inevitable, but I don't remember Sagan taking shots (cheap ones at that) at people of belief nearly as much as in this reboot has. I feel like more punches have been thrown in the first three episodes than in the entire original series. The show seems to go out of its way to call out religion. It gives out an incredibly negative vibe, IMO. No wonder people get so upset with it. The show can't really expect to change peoples' minds by belittling them. That's not how Sagan did it, and I don't think this is how he would have wanted it to be done.

Well, I look at it as reporting the truth.  The Catholic church did lock up scientists who presented facts that were contrary to what the church taught.  There is no other way representing that fact, and it is an important one to present, because science is about the discussion of the facts in hand, and how to add to the total knowledge.

My main criticism of the show might be wholly unfair, but there might have been 2 minutes worth of material that was new knowledge to me, but then again I don't think the target audience are people with my background.

[Chino]

*snip*

Well, I look at it as reporting the truth.  The Catholic church did lock up scientists who presented facts that were contrary to what the church taught.  There is no other way representing that fact, and it is an important one to present, because science is about the discussion of the facts in hand, and how to add to the total knowledge.

My main criticism of the show might be wholly unfair, but there might have been 2 minutes worth of material that was new knowledge to me, but then again I don't think the target audience are people with my background.

That falls into the "I know the occasional run in between the two is inevitable," that I mentioned. However, it's pretty convenient that in last week's episode, the show completely left out all the positive contributions Christianity made to give rise to modern science. It doesn't hesitate to bash when it can, but doesn't give credit when credit is due.

Thinking back to the first episode. NDT was giving a breakdown of the last 5000 years broken down into thousand year intervals. Everything he mentioned was religious based, implying that religions don't last long or have just recently been made up. Whether this is factual or not is irrelevant to the science, the main purpose of the show. He could have referenced dozens of other historical moments that would have been just as recognizable.

Looking at the second episode, specifically the tree scene. NDT made a comment like "Evolution, in my opinion, is a very spiritual experience". That is 100% a direct jab to religious people everywhere.

The point of this show (at least with Carl Sagan) wasn't to expose the truth on religious people. It was to bring science into the living room in the most friendly, welcoming way possible. This show is failing miserably at that.

[Implode]

I did feel a bit of tension whenever he brought up those facts. I'd say that's all part of NDT's plan and personality. When he spoke at my school a few months ago he did state that the feeling he got when gazing upon the cosmos probably did stimulate the same areas of the brain when religious people felt a deep spiritual connection with anything. That's just him. Also, another point he brought up a few times was a response to why Cosmos was going to be on Fox. He made a point to say that even though you'd think a show like Cosmos would be more successful on a more liberal network, it's exactly the audience of Fox that needs to see this show the most. So on some level, "converting" and confronting those people and their beliefs was something he intended to do.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but at least it's intentional.

[Progmetty]

Chino I think the change of times is a huge factor in the comparison of how often -or how tough- Sagan called out religion to NDT, this is stuff that probably wouldn't have made it to TV back then.

[Dr. DTVT]

another point he brought up a few times was a response to why Cosmos was going to be on Fox. He made a point to say that even though you'd think a show like Cosmos would be more successful on a more liberal network, it's exactly the audience of Fox that needs to see this show the most. So on some level, "converting" and confronting those people and their beliefs was something he intended to do.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but at least it's intentional.

I was wondering why it was on FOX.  I thought it had something to do with Seth McFarland being an executive producer.  The only problem with that logic is the people who watch a lot of FOX aren't necessarily the same people who watch Fox News; just like watching NBC doesn't make you a MSNBC watcher.

[millahh]

I don't see it as taking shots at religion...maybe at some science-denier religious people, but not all religious people, and not at religion as a whole.  In fact, NDT repeatedly goes out of his way to illustrate that science vs. religion is a false dichotomy.  The only shots are at literal takes on creation myths, and repression of scientific thought.

And let's not act like Sagan had kids gloves on with respect to religion...refer to his description of Hypatia, Cyril and the Libraries at Alexandria in the Cosmos book.

Anyway, I'm a little bummed that I'm not learning much new from it that I didn't already know in third grade (I watched WAY too much PBS as a kid), but the biographical background on Hook/Newton./Halley was interesting.  Of course, I'm also not the target audience.

Overall, it does seem like it suffers from Up-Goer Five syndrome (would be easier to define refractive index, than spend twenty seconds trying to explain it in one-syllable words), but again, I understand they're trying to make it as accessible as possible.

[Implode]

I agree that I'd love to have a similar show be more in depth, but obviously that isn't what this is supposed to me. It's intro to the cosmos.

[Dr. DTVT]

Anyway, I'm a little bummed that I'm not learning much new from it that I didn't already know in third grade

I'll panic when a non-scientist says these words.

We should hire someone to make a Cosmos for people like you, Dr. Seawolf, and I    The intro would be on par with a grad school quantum mechanics course.

[rumborak]

I watched the first three episodes now, pretty good. I was initially afraid after the first episode that the pace was too fast, but now they're nicely focusing on single topics per episode. The only thing I would like to see more at this point would be anchoring some of his statements in evidence. That is, show some trilobite fossils or a skull of Lucy.

[rumborak]

Watched the 4th episode yesterday, not bad. A bit 2001 Space Odyssey in the middle, that was kind of weird. Interesting jab at Young Earthers too.

[Chino]

Watched the 4th episode yesterday, not bad. A bit 2001 Space Odyssey in the middle, that was kind of weird. Interesting jab at Young Earthers too.

That Young Earthers comment was exactly the type of thing I was describing a few posts back. I really wish they wouldn't work those kind of things into the script of the show.

[Nick]

Well, four episodes in let me give my thoughts.

Firstly, Neil has been, as always, spectacular. That said, the way in which the show has been presented has been a little underwhelming. I'd like less to be spent on special effects and visual wow moments and more time just dedicated to having Neil explaining things. And during the cartoons having the language be modern and hip just falls laughably flat at times.

I think the evolution episode was the best so far, and the newest was the weakest, just because it went to the fringes of science and took on too many big ideas in too short a span of time.

As for the comments about religion, they absolutely belong in the show. While it is true that science and religion (in general) do not always need to but heads, the religious beliefs he has confronted in the show absolutely 100% fly in the face of scientific reasoning.

As someone who gets the shitholes of programming that History and Discovery have turned into, but not Science or H2, this show was a welcomed addition to my DVR. That said it has been good, and not nearly as good as it could be.

Edit: And NDT told a local radio station that Seth was crucial to getting it on Fox, and he loved the idea because it brought the show to a wide audience, which was the point of the original Cosmos.

[Chino]

As for the comments about religion, they absolutely belong in the show. While it is true that science and religion (in general) do not always need to but heads, the religious beliefs he has confronted in the show absolutely 100% fly in the face of scientific reasoning.

But everyone (99.99%) watching the show all already thinks the 6000 years thing is bullshit... that's why they are watching it in the first place. The viewer is already aware, and I can't help but think that it is more rooted in Seth's loathing of religion than it is delivering good science programming. There have been hundreds of different beliefs on how and when the Earth and the universe originated. Why waste the time to disprove a single example (which coincidentally just happens to be the religious views he seems to rip on the most)? Every minute spent arguing religion is a minute not spent on explaining science.

[Nick]

As for the comments about religion, they absolutely belong in the show. While it is true that science and religion (in general) do not always need to but heads, the religious beliefs he has confronted in the show absolutely 100% fly in the face of scientific reasoning.

But everyone (99.99%) watching the show all already think the 6000 years thing is bullshit... that's why they are watching it in the first place. The viewer is already aware, and I can't help but think that it is more rooted in Seth's loathing of religion than it is delivering good science programming. Every minute spent arguing religion, is a minute not spent on explaining science.

Don't even look at it as attacking religion, as at the heart that's not what it's doing. It's taking a moment to separate valid scientific theories from the various things viewers have heard to the contrary. Young earthers may not be a huge group (likely still larger than .01%), but look at creationists. I think it's worth half a minute to say that their views have no basis in physical evidence, evolution does, and that's why it's the theory that science has been refining for centuries. A BIG problem arises if you allow through silence or appeasement something like young earth or creationism to rise to a level where it's accepted as the other side of a story. It's not, it's wrong, and should be stated as such to focus on the actual science.

In the end, those things play a big role whether I like it or not, and so I think it's worth addressing.

[rumborak]

Well, if the section about Young Earth had been just a jab, I would agree it would be lame. But, they framed it in some very enlightening piece of information, that is that the universe *must* be older because otherwise we would not see past a small sphere of stars. That is, it got across that the fact we can see very far-away stars tells us something about the age of the universe.

[Dr. DTVT]

Here's a thought for KEEPING the religious potshots in.  The show probably is directed more at kids than adults like us, despite the 9 pm timeslot.  By explaining why the young Earth movement is wrong is almost like immunizing kids against being taught that later.  People aren't born young Earthers or evolutionists, what it really depends on is who gets to them first.  Look at how well religion gets ingrained in some people.  Some people learn to assimilate new knowledge and continue to grow (hefdaddy, for instance), while others put their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs, and it's the latter that you have to get to first.  If someone is going to be a rigid thinker, you might as well get them to learn correct facts.

[Nick]

Here's a thought for KEEPING the religious potshots in.  The show probably is directed more at kids than adults like us, despite the 9 pm timeslot.  By explaining why the young Earth movement is wrong is almost like immunizing kids against being taught that later.  People aren't born young Earthers or evolutionists, what it really depends on is who gets to them first.  Look at how well religion gets ingrained in some people.  Some people learn to assimilate new knowledge and continue to grow (hefdaddy, for instance), while others put their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs, and it's the latter that you have to get to first.  If someone is going to be a rigid thinker, you might as well get them to learn correct facts.

Very good point. Not that I intend to have kids, or if so, any time soon, but I really wish you could "baptize" a kid with a keen scientific mind.

[Chino]

Last Sunday's episode (light) was, in my opinion, the worst episode yet. Too much of the same topic made me very bored.

[kirksnosehair]

I watched about 3/4 of the first episode then deleted it from my DVR queue.    Huge letdown.   

[Chino]

I watched about 3/4 of the first episode then deleted it from my DVR queue.    Huge letdown.   

I've watched every episode so far, several of them twice. As a huge fan of the original Cosmos, both television series and book, this reboot is a serious let down. It's a shame because I'm a huge NDT fan as well. I've been a fan of his before most people even knew of him as "that black science guy that was on The Daily Show". I don't think the show deserves to share the name "Cosmos". It's a really expensive, thirteen episode Science Channel special, and nothing more.

NDT pretending to cry on the last episode made me cringe.

[gmillerdrake]

Here's a thought for KEEPING the religious potshots in.  The show probably is directed more at kids than adults like us, despite the 9 pm timeslot.  By explaining why the young Earth movement is wrong is almost like immunizing kids against being taught that later.  People aren't born young Earthers or evolutionists, what it really depends on is who gets to them first.  Look at how well religion gets ingrained in some people.  Some people learn to assimilate new knowledge and continue to grow (hefdaddy, for instance), while others put their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs, and it's the latter that you have to get to first.  If someone is going to be a rigid thinker, you might as well get them to learn correct facts.

Very good point. Not that I intend to have kids, or if so, any time soon, but I really wish you could "baptize" a kid with a keen scientific mind.

I'm raising my kids in a Christian environment and that hasn't stopped them from being VERY curious about science, space.....and asking a lot of the 'why' questions. I don't give them a simplified 'because that's the way God made it answer' to any of thier questions either. That'd be highly irresponsible of me as a parent. If they are curious about certain things I buy age appropriate books about that and we read them together. Things like the dinosaurs and archeology....space in general.....the human body. I don't see any reason why the two lines of thinking have to be in such a conflict on every issue all the time.





Side note: Dr. DVTV.....there are plenty of 'science folk' who put their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs as well when you try to discuss anything 'religious' with them. It's not just a one way street on that.

[Dr. DTVT]

Read my last sentence, I didn't imply it was a one way street.  You are implying I am attacking people when I am not, I am only critical of people who ignore proven scientific fact because they are so convinced they are right that anything their line of thought is wrong.

More to the point, I think I'm giving up on this show.  It's hard for me to be critical of the fact that I'm not learning anything because it's all old hat to me.  I would suggest everyone to check out the dated, but still excellent Connections series.  More informative and probably entertaining than this version of Cosmos.

[gmillerdrake]

Read my last sentence, I didn't imply it was a one way street.  You are implying I am attacking people when I am not, I am only critical of people who ignore proven scientific fact because they are so convinced they are right that anything their line of thought is wrong.

That's fair.....if and when it's a proven scientific fact. There are quite a few very popular scientific theories that get used time and time again as fact when in fact they've yet to be proven.

[Chino]

That's fair.....if and when it's a proven scientific fact. There are quite a few very popular scientific theories that get used time and time again as fact when in fact they've yet to be proven.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious. What examples are you thinking of?

[Nick]

Read my last sentence, I didn't imply it was a one way street.  You are implying I am attacking people when I am not, I am only critical of people who ignore proven scientific fact because they are so convinced they are right that anything their line of thought is wrong.

That's fair.....if and when it's a proven scientific fact. There are quite a few very popular scientific theories that get used time and time again as fact when in fact they've yet to be proven.

Yeah, like the theory of gravity. Teach the controversy!

Last Sunday's episode (light) was, in my opinion, the worst episode yet. Too much of the same topic made me very bored.

As someone who thought previous episodes jumped around a tad much, it should come as no surprise I thought last week's episode was potentially the best. 

[CrimsonSunrise]

Yeah...last night's episode was a snoozer   

[gmillerdrake]

That's fair.....if and when it's a proven scientific fact. There are quite a few very popular scientific theories that get used time and time again as fact when in fact they've yet to be proven.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious. What examples are you thinking of?

Just the big one really. Evolution. I don't ignore the endless amount of Facts that can support Microevolution. It's fascinating. But the theory that 'we' started in some bubbling pool of water accidentally a few billion years ago is just as comical to me as believing in God is comical to some of you......and hasn't been supported by facts.

I'm not looking for a fight or arugument either because it's been done a thousand times here at DTF alone. I can't compete in battling the scientific knowledge a lot of you guys have and am not a Biblical Scholar who's going to combat you with an onslaught of scripture that would do nothing to sway you anyway. I've read a couple books where scientists have set out to prove that God doesn't exist and the 'science' actually converted them to Christianity. I wish I could articulate their findings....but to be honest even when reading it multiple times it doesn't 'click' with me.....

[Chino]

That's fair.....if and when it's a proven scientific fact. There are quite a few very popular scientific theories that get used time and time again as fact when in fact they've yet to be proven.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious. What examples are you thinking of?

Just the big one really. Evolution. I don't ignore the endless amount of Facts that can support Microevolution. It's fascinating. But the theory that 'we' started in some bubbling pool of water accidentally a few billion years ago is just as comical to me as believing in God is comical to some of you......and hasn't been supported by facts.

Now you're getting into how life began, not the evolution of that life once it began. Two completely different topics. A lot of people argue and give Darwin a ton of flack because they claim his book "The Origin of Species" was an attempt to disprove god. Not true. He was simply discussing exactly the book title said, the origin of species, not the origin of life. Darwin actually attributed the laws of the universe, including evolution, to a master designer. But, you're correct, the origin of life is just a theory. Even if we managed to ever replicate the idea or the primordial soup in a lab, we could still never prove that is how it started on Earth. A finding like that could just start a whole new line of debates, perhaps even indicating that life can be started in multiple ways under many different circumstances. Just as many professionals believe life could have formed elsewhere and transported here via comets as they do the soup idea. We do know of bacteria (several kinds) that have survived launch, the conditions of space, and reentry, so the origins of life are anyone's guess.

[gmillerdrake]

That's fair.....if and when it's a proven scientific fact. There are quite a few very popular scientific theories that get used time and time again as fact when in fact they've yet to be proven.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious. What examples are you thinking of?

Just the big one really. Evolution. I don't ignore the endless amount of Facts that can support Microevolution. It's fascinating. But the theory that 'we' started in some bubbling pool of water accidentally a few billion years ago is just as comical to me as believing in God is comical to some of you......and hasn't been supported by facts.

Now you're getting into how life began, not the evolution of that life once it began. Two completely different topics. A lot of people argue and give Darwin a ton of flack because they claim his book "The Origin of Species" was an attempt to disprove god. Not true. He was simply discussing exactly the book title said, the origin of species, not the origin of life. Darwin actually attributed the laws of the universe, including evolution, to a master designer. But, you're correct, that is just a theory. Even if we managed to ever replicate the idea or the primordial soup in a lab, we could still never prove that is how it started on Earth. A finding like that could just start a whole new line of debates, perhaps even indicating that life can be started in multiple ways under many different circumstances. Just as many professionals believe life could have formed elsewhere and transported here via comets as they do the soup idea. We do know of bacteria (several kinds) that have survived launch, the conditions of space, and reentry, so the origins of life are anyone's guess.

See...I can't even get my arguments straight

It's been mentioned before here and I think it rings true for either stance you take...in the grand scheme of things "we", at this point in time....know very little about anything as grand as our Universe. I'm sure it's happened to you in your journey to gain more scientific knowledge as it's happened to me as I try to grow Spiritually......I find myself being humbled quite often and come to the realization time after time that the understanding I seek is simply not understandable by my mind. Maybe that's just me...don't want to put words in your mouth.

[kirksnosehair]

The more I learn the more I realize how profoundly stupid I really am. 

[Dr. DTVT]

Origin of Life will always be open for debate and questioning.  At this point any idea involving a creator is equally as valid as one not involving a creator.  As Chino pointed out, even if somehow we create life from amino acids, that is not to say that is how it started on Earth.

What is not debatable is evolution.  You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, find a legitimately educated biologist (masters degree or higher from an accredited institution) who says evolution doesn't happen.  The deniers are not educated in biology.  Evolution is the process of favorable gene mutations propagating among a species.  This has been shown not only long term, but within the lifetimes of people.  Penicillin resistant bacteria were not around 150 years ago.  Then we started using penicillin as the nuclear weapon of choice when dealing with bacterial infection.  The bacteria evolved to biosynthesize a new enzyme that attacks the β-lactam ring and opens it, thus converting the penicillin molecule to an inactive chemical, and the bacteria goes about it's business.  I only chose that example because it is one of the more well known examples, but there are thousands more.