Cosmos

Chad Orzell has some problems with the reboot. So do I and while it’s not his main concern, he puts his finger on it:

The bit where he called out young-Earth creationism for the impoverished scale of its vision was cute, too, though I’m not sure it was all that necessary or useful (in that the people who believe that won’t be watching, and wouldn’t be convinced), but then the show has clearly established a pattern of throwing red meat to the anti-religious from time to time.

Yes, if by “from time to time” he means every episode so far. I’m not traditionally religious, but I find it gratuitous and off putting. The writers and Tyson seem to get some sort of righteous satisfaction from putting a rhetorical thumb in the eyes of believers. It does not advance science, or their own secular religious cause.

10 thoughts on “Cosmos

  1. George Turner

    They lost me in episode 1 when they held up Giordano Bruno as a martyr for science. He was a mystic nutcase who wanted to start a powerful knew religious cult and lead them into battle, and this during a period of extreme religious wars. Even Galileo, who knew Bruno and who was himself persecuted, never mentioned Bruno as a martyr. It was centuries before anyone even suggested that maybe Bruno could be portrayed as such, and to even make the claim they have to omit almost all details about what a bizarre mystical con man Bruno actually was, and that he was sold out by a very liberal nobleman who was extremely angry with Bruno for failing to teach him mystical memorization secrets as promised.

  2. ken anthony

    Imagine if we dismissed science with a sneer because it often gets things wrong? It does bother me when any people are incurious, but they have the right. The bible has amazing scientific insights that are only apparent in the last few hundred years because science finally caught up. How could you understand when the bible says your parts were written down in the womb if you didn’t understand DNA? The earth is a ball that hangs on nothing says the bible thousands of years ago (most translations say circle but the Hebrew word also refers to spheres.) Even in my lifetime I’ve had some older folks ask me why Australians don’t fall off into space. They sincerely did not understand but were still good people and could learn.

    God didn’t write the King James version. It was written in Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic by 40 men and scribes but it claims that they were inspired to put down god’s thoughts. That’s a big claim which requires big evidence. The evidence is there, but it can and is discounted usually by people unwilling to examine it. Or reading just long enough to find something they see as a discrepancy so they don’t have to look into it any further.

    The bible doesn’t say how old the universe is. 13.8 billion years sounds fine to me until it’s refined by further data. I’ve read there are objects older than the universe in the universe. I don’t understand that.

    Day does not always refer to 24 hours even in english. Gen 2:4 refers to all of creation as a day. So the irony is it’s young earth creationist who are not reading the bible literally. But all people should have the right to, over time, grow in understanding… even scientists.

  3. Bilwick

    Although Seth MacFarlane has shown some streaks of independence (putting Rush Limbaugh as Rush Limbaugh on FAMILY GUY, and not making him a clown or a villain), all indications are that he’s your garden-variety “liberal.” And on the Internet Movie Database’s page for the reboot, the comments seem to be from some Bible-thumpers, but mainly from “liberals” lording their own alleged intellectual superiority over Christian creationists. As a non-religious libertarian, I enjoy the fight from the sidelines. If you’ve drunk the Hive’s Kool-Aid, and as a result the rational part of your brain has shrunk and you’ve become a member of the Cult of the State, you really have no business mocking other people’s religious beliefs.

  4. dn-guy

    “he bit where he called out young-Earth creationism for the impoverished scale of its vision ”

    Young Earth Creationism doesn’t suffer from an impoverishment vision, it’s just whacky,
    religious delusion, completely disconnected from logic or reason. That may of course
    explain it’s popularity amongst conservatives.

    1. Rand Simberg Post author

      No, it only explains its popularity among morons. Like you. Though you seem to have a different complete disconnect from logic or reason.

    2. ken anthony

      Considering the date, I’d like to commend you dn-guy, on your consistent logic and reason.

  5. Chuck Divine

    I will weigh in with a comment that might upset both camps in the science – religion controversy.

    I am a cradle Episcopalian. My interests in astronomy and science in general were supported by my bright, caring parents and by my church when I was growing up. The Scopes Monkey Trial was viewed by all of us as ignorant Southerners making ignorant claims and attacking truth.

    If you investigate the Episcopal Church today, you will find that our Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori has, shall we say, some interest in science. Her father is a physicist. Her mother is a biologist. Before she became an Episcopal priest, she was a marine biologist. She is married to a mathematician. Their daughter is an Air Force pilot. There is a good bit of controversy in the church about Jefferts-Schori — but not on grounds of science versus religion.

    I will make a few observations about the need for reform in the sciences. When doctors get so exhausted that they kill patients with their mistakes, that is not reasonable behavior. Sleep deprived engineers decided to launch Challenger that last time. That was not a reasonable decision.

    Let me plug a posting on my blog about Katherine Jefferts-Schori. It is something I wrote for the local Mensa newsletter. I titled it An Exceptionally Special Day in the Life of Ambassador Chuck. It is about the first time I met Jefferts-Schori. More recently I met her again — this time with her husband. Her husband and I had an interesting conversation about various reforms I think are needed in science and technology fields. They both now agree with me.

Comments are closed.