New "Cosmos" with Neil Degrasse Tyson

I have DVR'd this. Can't wait to watch it.

Nicely done.

The fundie Christians are so butthurt over this it's not even funny.

I want that Samsung curved screen TV more than I want my next orgasm.

I like NDT. He tells it to religion like it is.

I thought it was very well done.

What I [italic]really[/italic] loved was Neil's tribute to Carl Sagan at the end.

That was a nice touch and I found it moving.

Yes, r5, and it seemed as if Neil was getting a little verklempt telling the story.

I love Neil, but miss Carl. What would he have said about Fukushima?

The spaceship was a step up from Carl's which looked like a 70s Lutheran Church.

My friends and family tend to not be science people, so I tend to be extra sensitive to shows like this "assuming" too much knowledge.

Every time I watch, I'm disappointed at the tiny opportunities to connect some dots explicitly that wouldn't bore anyone who knows, but would definitely help those that don't.

A little more introduction here, a few extra words there, a slightly different visual perspective... would help some people who would otherwise get lost and give up on something like this.

Uh, r9, there are 12 more episodes of it to go...

Such as, R9?

I prefer the original's live-action historical re-enactments, to this verison's weird animation.

I liked it and am looking forward to the next ep. Didn't realize it was a series at first; for some reason I thought it was a one-off special. Guess I forgot that American Dad had been cancelled.

No shit, R9. I watched all the original. I'm pretty certain this series will tell me nothing I don't already know. That's not the point I was making at all.

R13, American Dad isn't canceled. It's moving to TBS.

That animation is creepy.

where can I watch this?

R17, its only showing on TEN different networks...

No love for Seth McFarlane? This "Cosmos" redo is his vanity project - his input is likely the reason you're enjoying the anti-religious aspect of the series.

A program that snobs won't watch, but think will be good for the hoi-polloi. Pass.

I totally choked up at the end when he was talking about Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan really meant a lot to me as well... he inspired me so much. The original show inspired me so much.

Do you know when, r15?

Honestly, I think it should be required viewing for every High School student.

But then I thought the same of the last series all those years ago.

R9 thinks he's the smart one in his family.

Me, too, R20. I do like Neil DeGrasse Tyson - despite his odd singy-songy delivery, here - and know that he's the most likely, 'successor', but..Nobody can replace Carl. Nobody.

That being said - any hot goss on Carl?

r17, aside from FOX on Sunday nights (FOX Network, home of The Simpsons and American Idol, not FOX News, it should be noted), it's also airing on the National Geographic channel on Monday nights. Not sure of the time.

I am waiting for the teabaggers to attack this show.

R20, me too

[quote] it's also airing on the National Geographic channel on Monday nights. Not sure of the time.

I'll try it out

the gossip on CS is that he was gay, serious. married three times. . . .

I loved it. Neil Degrasse Tyson is my geek crush. I am so turned on by brilliant men.

[quote]the anti-religious aspect of the series.

What about it was anti-religions?

This episode was about "Deep Space" and "Deep Time", attempting to provide a scale, from what we know, to the larger universe... to provide context for future episodes.

Honestly, I think it could have been done more clearly, making that point, but it was still good, and I hope a lot of people are watching.

I wonder what the ratings look like, given you have to add up the numbers across ten networks and multiple showings and DVR viewings (because Sunday night is so packed with TV, I'm guessing a lot of people watched this on second showings or via DVR or even website streaming)

The paperback book Tyson pulled out at the end that Sagan had signed was oddly white and unmarked.

I can see it being in good condition but a mass market paperback from 1975 would have aged yellow with the acidic content in its pages. Prop!

Let the teabaggers/religious nuts go watch Duck Dynasty or Kirk Cameron's version of events.

No one gives a shit what those idiots thinks.

[quote]What about it was anti-religions?

The fact that it wasn't a Ned Flanders interpretation of how the world came about: A big finger coming out of a cloud and *poof* dinosaurs, then *poof* humans.

R30, did you WATCH it?

R34 Yes, I did watch it. I did not see anything anti-religious about it. That's why I asked.

R34, it wasn't so much anti-religion as it was anti-organized religion in that they limit God's reach.

They presented Giordano Bruno as never having lost his faith in his God. He views God as limitless and infinite. Part of something greater than previously imagined.

Are you SURE you watched it, R35?

Because apparently you missed most of it.

R37 can you give some examples of what about it was anti religious? You keep insisting it was, yet have offered no proof.

I didn't get the anti religious angle neither

It wasn't 'anti-religious' - it simply presented an uncompromisingly scientific explanation for the world's origins without including the 'hand-of-God.' in any way. It also showed how organized religion feared and tried to silence science, as it undermined the authority they had enjoyed until that point.

Still, by starting with the Big Bang - and no discussion about how the Big Bang happened or what was before - it leaves room for introducing God into the equation, if that's what someone wants to believe.

Look, to the Holy Rollers in this country, anything that doesn't promote the Biblical interpretation of creation is "anti-religion". They want no discussion of science whatsoever.

It wasn't so much "anti-religious" as it was completely truthful and fact-based when describing the very anti-science attitudes and behaviors in the 16th century. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to assert that the sun was just a star, and each star in the night sky was another sun for distant worlds.

The inquisition panel told him that such thoughts were heresy, after all, everyone knew that the Earth was created by God as the absolute center of the entire universe. For Bruno to suggest that there was nothing special about Earth from a cosmological point of view was to invite questions into the church's absolutely unquestionable authority over the rest of us poor sods. They were so threatened by this unorthodox thinking that they tortured him, excommunicated him, and burnt him at the stake.

The mere fact that some Christians and right-wing Americans might get offended by this story is exactly why we need shows like Cosmos back in our nation's popular culture. There used to be a time when telling facts wasn't controversial, and if the truths were unpleasant then those who committed the terrible deeds could either apologize, or stay silent, ie facts trumped all else. Not so in the past 25 years or so. Now, if my loaded opinion and/or prejudice is louder than yours and I repeat it to millions of people on AM radio or Fox news, then my views are correct, and yours aren't. This also explains how so many republicans believe in creationism, because if facts--demonstrable facts exposed and reliably reproduced by the application of the scientific method--can be discarded at will because they make major aspects of my sky pal mythology provably false, then I can choose to say my beliefs are actually facts in my world.

I thought the show was a great start! I have the series set up in my DVR for all of the remaining episodes.

I love this show

[quote] Still, by starting with the Big Bang - and no discussion about how the Big Bang happened or what was before - it leaves room for introducing God into the equation, if that's what someone wants to believe.

And they included Moses and Jesus in their timeline, legitimizing their existence, when it's likely they're both fictional characters. Maybe some extreme fundies will be pissed the show dissed the crusades, but that's about it. Not many try to defend the brutality of the middle ages.

I'm gay and like to think of myself as progressive as the next guy. I'm also educated and have my own views on faith, science and religion.

That said, I don't understand why so many of you foam at the mouth to extract any alleged tell-off of Christians in this program. I don't think NTD meant it that way.

This sort of show no doubt won't be for religious people, but there is indeed room in this world, and in enlightened society for Christians as well as Jews, Muslims and those of other faiths. Belief in Jesus or Buddha or Allah or whomever doesn't automatically make one ignorant or wrong, it just means they/we subscribe to a faith that may not be your own. It may be wrong or it could be completely right.

The foaming, broad stroke dismissal of anyone of faith here on DL is most bizarre.

That's a fair point to make, R45, and well said.

I don't have a problem with people having faith. I have a problem with people who think something like creationism should be taught as if it were on the same level as science.

The Bible, along with every other holy book, should be respected and taught from an historical perspective, but the text itself should be questioned.

Anyone who is both religious and intelligent should take no issue with a debate about faith. They should not see it as an affront to their religion. No one is telling them what to believe, but if presented with something that renders their beliefs false, their instinct should not be to shut down the discussion or whine about it. They should either accept it or present facts that counter it.

[quote]Belief in Jesus or Buddha or Allah or whomever doesn't automatically make one ignorant or wrong

Yeah, it pretty much does. There's no way you can defend that statement, because such a belief in the super-natural is completely anti-science, anti-reality, and 'wrong' by definition.

[quote]It wasn't so much "anti-religious" as it was completely truthful and fact-based when describing the very anti-science attitudes and behaviors in the 16th century.

Being truthful and fact-based is by definition anti-religious.

[quote]R37 can you give some examples of what about it was anti religious? You keep insisting it was, yet have offered no proof.

Because I have no fucking clue how you could miss the fact that the entire thing was anti-religious. The ENTIRE story of the monk that was burned at the stake was completely anti-religion, pointing out how WRONG religion was. The very fact it asserts the Universe is older than 5000-6000 years, and that we evolved from simpler life forms is anti-religion. It goes directly against what the bible says, and directly against fundamentalist religious belief.

There wasn't a moment of the show that wasn't anti-religion, and certainly no moment of the show that was pro-religion.

SO again, I have absolutely no clue how you can be so (willfully) blind to what you allegedly watched, and have such a stupid question? It's like asking me which part Neil Degrasse Tyson was in, because you saw no evidence of him in the show.

It's a stupid fucking question. So far beyond clueless that I don't even know where to start.

[quote] Anyone who is both religious and intelligent

Oxymoron

So WTF did you want them to do, R50? Lie about how old the world is to satisfy the ignorant? Lie about why Bruno was killed? Lie about how religion did stand in the way of science?

[quote]So WTF did you want them to do, [R50]?

Exactly what they did? Why do you think I think otherwise?

[quote]Lie about how old the world is to satisfy the ignorant?

Absolutely not. Why would you think I'd want that?

[quote] Lie about why Bruno was killed?

Hell no. Why would you think I would want that?

[quote] Lie about how religion did stand in the way of science?

Why would I want them to lie about that WHEN THAT'S MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT?

Jesus, what's wrong with you?

I'm pointing out to the numbnut above that the show is thoroughly anti-religion. This is a good thing, but I'm sick and tired of people so in denial that they claim to have watched the show and not seen even a hint of anything anti-religious.

Even when the predicate of the entire episode is that "Science is so powerful, that we went from looking at the moon to walking on it in a few short centuries, compared to the complete lack of progress made in MELLINIA with religion."

R50 Ok, we get it. Facts are anti religious. Thank you for confirming what we already know: religious people hate facts. I guess you think saying slavery was once legal in the US is an anti American statement.

I disagree, R51. There are intelligent, religious people.

We still have unanswered questions and there's nothing wrong with people who want to believe in something omnipotent until we have answers to those unanswered questions.

R54, apples and oranges. Learn to use reason and logic before responding again.

[quote]There are intelligent, religious people.

No, there really aren't. There are people that seem intelligent, but they engage in compartmentalization and hypocrisy and worse. Truly intelligent people are smart enough to look at religion, see it for what it is, and reject it.

But it wasn't anti-religion because Bruno himself was religious until the very end. It was anti-organized religion.

Religious men were the ones who embraced science. They were the ones who wanted religion and science to co-exist. It was more the "political" arms of religion attempting to shut down thought and knowledge.

I have to agree with r51. I'm sorry, but a truly intelligent person will have thoroughly dismissed all that religious hoo-haa as the mythological bunk that it is.

And r54 gives us a false analogy: saying that slavery was once legal in the U.S. is not an anti-American statement because the U.S. does not DENY the fact that we had slavery in our past.

R56 First, you are not the boss of me, I will respond however I please. The fact still remains that the mere mention of facts is something you consider anti-religious. Crazy.

Bad science for stupid people.

Sorry, it was quite bad. I hate it, for example, that he tells this story about an asteroid 'moving slightly to the left', then hitting the Earth later and killing the dinosaurs. One THEORY is that it might have been an asteroid, but it's presented on this show as being a fact. I also hated all the God talk, which was clearly done to pander. They were presenting unpleasant facts about organized religion, so they tempered it by referring to "god's creation". Yuck.

Dumbed down pseudo-science.

R59 The church does not DENY they persecuted people like Bruno. Yet, somehow saying they did so is a slam against religion. Get it now?

R62, no, you idiot, I'm not talking about denying Bruno, I'm talking about their long and continuing history of denying science IN FUCKING GENERAL.

Agree it was horrible.

Like every remake of the Wizard of Oz horrible.

Neil is not a good narrator

And why so much time spent on the persecution of ancient scientists? Mention it and move on already. We don't need to see an entire school play reenactment with bad animation. Far too much to cover to be dwelling on that crap.

The whole thing was like a bad acid trip.

Oh c'mon, you can't tell me some atheist flipping burgers is more intelligent than a doctor who goes to church.

Not everyone who doesn't believe in God is Stephen Hawking and everyone who does is Sarah Palin. You can't be so black and white when it comes to intelligence.

I think Stephen Colbert is one of the most intelligent people out there and he's active at his church.

R63 Currently the Catholic church has no issue with evolution, no issue with the earth being billions of years old, no issue with the heliocentric system. So where you get this idea that they're are continuing to deny science is a bit of a mystery.

deGrasse Tyson's strength has always been his ability to simplify the complex to the uninformed masses and that's what this program was meant to do. It wasn't NOVA and I don't think it tried to be.

R64, I'm sure some of that stuff is just padding to stretch this thing out over 13 episodes. But I agree, it could get tiresome very quickly.

R65, Science should not be religion, and religion is certainly not science. People can believe whatever they like. But i don't like science being mingled with religion, as it invites superstition to creep into science. We are a society that is drowning in pseudoscience, and I don't think it's too much to expect that a science show refrain from using sentimental language about God.

R64, completely agree.

I hated the cartoons because they employed silliness like Bruno magically flying out of his cell. Because, you know, he was on the right religious path. That garbage has no place in a science show.

R67, that may be his 'strength', but it wasn't evident here. Everything was far too oversimplified, to the point of absurdity. And connections were not made that should have easily been made. The narration/facts were too spare, with too much focus on graphics and cartoons.

I mean, the narration talked about Saturn's rings, but we now know that Jupiter has rings as well.But it was depicted as being without rings to pander to public common knowledge. I hate that sort of absurdity.

r65, and that's precisely one of two things that makes me think less of Colbert (the other being his love of Bored of the Rings).

NDT was not 'anti-Religion', but he was most emphatically against suppression of truth and the basic practices of the scientific method, and unfortunately, for much of its history, that is exactly what the Catholic church and other organized religions have actively done.

We only advanced as a society when we were freely allowed to ask questions, test them, and throw out whatever ideas don't fit with our hypotheses.

Random thought -- I wonder why PBS never bought any of Terry Jones' history shows. Too cheaply produced? I enjoy them.

Missed this in order to celebrate my birthday with a lovely dinner and then watch the finale of True Detective. Sounds like I didn't miss much.

I loved it but hated the animation. It looked like those religious fundie cartoons. Or maybe that was the intent all along--to be tongue in cheek?

Yea, I thought the animation was pretty cheesy, as in low rent and cheaply done. In fact, I think they re-purposed the George Harrison cels from Yellow Submarine.

I don't think it's anti religion.. per se.

It's anti-ignoramus.. per se.

I still miss Carl and his hot self.

Don't even preempt Family Guy and American Dad again.

They didn't, R79. Animation Domination just started an hour earlier. Still four half-hour cartoon episodes.

They didn't preempt Family Guy; it aired earlier.

And it's on for the next 12 weeks, bitches!

R77... a difference without a distinction?

Per Seth MacFarlane's Facebook page:

Numbers are in: 12 million Cosmos viewers in the US alone, 17.5 million with DVR! Thanks to you all!

As watered down as it might have been, there is still the pleasant fact that a science show actually appeared on Fox television networks and at prime time, no less. Because of that, millions of people who otherwise would never even think about things having to do with planetary science or cosmology or asteroids, etc, will have conversations with family members and coworkers and friends about what they saw. People talking about the nature of reality, people talking about how do we know what we know, and people asking questions about things they never thought of before. These are very good things to have in an intelligent society.

Now, if only we could get the History Channel to stop showing pseudo-history like "The Struggles of Nostradamus!", "Ancient Aliens," and "Secret Codes of the Bible!"

AW!! I teared up at the end! as a young 13-year-old watcher of the original series it broke me up to think of the torch literally having been handed to this next generation, right there in the first episode. Learning never stops, I am so happy that a new generation can enjoy this series too.

I get turned off when someone tries to message me. I like Neil a lot too, but Carl made the mold. I just hope no one tries the same thing with Roots.

I hate him!

[quote]I get turned off when someone tries to message me.

what?

Neil is a smart guy but man, he needs a new look. That rug and bushy walrus mustache is doing him NO favors.

Carl Sagan in his time rocked his geeked-out look

Stephen Colbert is a very clever fellow. He knows that if he makes fun of religion and is an atheist, then religious people won't listen to him. But if he goes to church and proclaims himself and active catholic, religious people will see him as a questioning believer and they will not automatically stop listening.

You can go to church and not believe, I do it all the time

Watch out, “Cosmos”! The Holy Inquisition is not happy with you:

Shit Happened, that's how current scientific theories explain the origin of the universe...shit happened.

They're gonna have to do better than that is they want to completely debunk the alternate religious explanation that attributes the creation of the universe to a an almighty entity.

hardly, you're not really funny

[bold] Oklahoma Fox station removes evolution from ‘Cosmos’ by cutting only 15 seconds [/bold]

In what appeared to be an editing error, a Fox affiliate in Oklahoma managed to remove the only mention of evolution from Sunday night’s Cosmos science documentary by cutting only 15 seconds from the broadcast.

The much-anticipated reboot of Carl Sagan’s legendary Cosmos premiered on Sunday with an overview of the history of the Universe, from the Big Bang to the advent of humans.

It wasn’t until the last 10 minutes of the show that host Neil deGrasse Tyson hinted at human evolution.

“We are newcomers to the Cosmos,” he explained. “Our own story only begins on the last night of the cosmic year.”

“Three and a half million years ago, our ancestors — your and mine left these traces,” Tyson said, pointing to footprints. “We stood up and parted ways from them. Once we were standing on two feet, our eyes were no longer fixated on the ground. Now, we were free to look up and wonder.”

But for viewers of KOKH-TV in Oklahoma City, that 15 second paragraph was replaced by an awkwardly-inserted commercial for the evening news. The edit was caught on video and uploaded to YouTube by Adam Bates.

At least one of the segments advertised in the news promo — a story about a 12-year-old bow hunter — did air on that evening’s newscast.

Watch the edited and original versions of Cosmos below, broadcast March 9, 2013. (at link.)

disgusting

[quote] That being said - any hot goss on Carl?

Not exactly hot gossip, but an old friend of mine was a very young grad student at Cornell and taught one of Carl's kids in a physics class. Carl would send corrections and commentary on my friend's work as shown in the assignments he gave. He describes that as "humbling".

He's now a slightly less well known physics and astronomy professor than Tyson (comments on NPR and lectures nationally on various issues) and is thrilled to death about the new series. Apparently it's very well targeted to the current crop of questionably educated teens and young adults.

I love it.

I am a big fan!

I thought it was poorly written and choppy. The explanation of the size of the universe was pretty cursory and unimpressive. I hope later eps improve.

For r26:

Oklahoma news channel "accidentally" cuts Cosmos' mention of evolution

any of you bitches watch it tonight?

What's with the abrupt breaks?

I'lll watch it tomorrow on Nat Geo

I really like this episode over the first. They did a really good job of presenting evolution in an understandable way using dogs and bears.

Is Neil banging Seth?

They did a good job on evolution, but then jumped around too much. A bit on the permian extinction. They started talking about the origin of life on earth but never really got there. Then off to Titan. It still strikes me as disorganized.

[quote] Oklahoma Fox station removes evolution from ‘Cosmos’ by cutting only 15 seconds

How will they be able to edit this week's episode when the whole thing was about evolution? The host even said "Evolution is all around us. It's a part of us. It would be silly to deny this."

Neil Degrasse Tyson said on tonight's show, "Some claim evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion. Evolution is a scientific FACT. Evolution really happened."

How are they going to edit this out?

Neil deGrasse Tyson says "Intelligent Design is Stupid."

Well the new episode definitely took the creationist fundies dead on. That Oklahoma station must've been in panic mode.

Fundie: Me no believe in evolution, how can create eyeball, gotcha!

Cosmos: STFU moron

The problem is *I'm* not learning anything new, so it's fairly boring for me.

I like how they stick it to Creationists, but anyone else find it difficult to understand this Neil guy when he speaks? There's something about the tone and pitch of his voice - I find myself turning up the TV to hear what he's saying. Maybe it's the background music? It's a little annoying.

Thankfully Fox (yuck) is rerunning episodes during the week. So, if you miss it and don't want to watch online, check your TV listings.

Couldn't they find a more charismatic host? All that beautiful computer generated visuals and then comes Neil Degrasse and sucks the energy out of everything. I guess Seth chose Neil because he reminds him of Cleveland Brown

There aren't many black men in the sciences, so NDT, who is in charge of the planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, is a role model who gets lots of airtime. He's often on the Daily Show, Colbert Report and Bill Maher's Real Time.

When I was growing up and in college, religion had its place as did science. Plenty of scientists were presbyterians or catholics or other commonplace religions. It didn't affect their scientific inquiry. It is unfortunate that the emergence of entitled nutjobs has ruined things, but if Dr. Tyson can restore order to the world, I'm all for it.

When I was growing up, science was taught in school and religion was taught at church. We had Sunday school which was where you learned about God and the Bible and school was where you learned about everything else. I believe in God and evolution. Why can't there be both? No one has ALL THE ANSWERS and will not until life is over. Maybe someone will come back with some answers.

[quote] I believe in God and evolution. Why can't there be both?

Because they're contradictory to each other, you moron.

Dr. Neil De Grasse Tyson is a great popularize of science, and a worthy successor to the late, great Carl Sagan.

[quote]but anyone else find it difficult to understand this Neil guy when he speaks?

No, and I have no idea what you're even talking about.

[quote]They did a good job on evolution, but then jumped around too much. A bit on the permian extinction. They started talking about the origin of life on earth but never really got there. Then off to Titan. It still strikes me as disorganized.

I agree... even if they want to focus on so many things in just one hour, they didn't really flow well from one to the next. Given my background in science, I didn't find it confusing, but I'm trying to watch this from the perspective of someone who isn't well versed in all of this, and I do think they sorta go places and never follow up or explain exactly why it was relevant. I'm sure they'll fill in the gaps over time, but I think it could be done better.

I agree with R122. I find NDT perfectly easy to understand.

If they're going to revive this why didn't they just use the original host? Why get a random black guy?

You're being sarcastic, right, R125?

R125 clearly is dumb, but mostly clearly never watched the first episode

NDT is doing a great job hosting this, and forgive me, but I choose to look at this show as a big single finger salute to the creationist anti-science wing nuts out there.

Plus the material is fascinating and beautifully produced.

I love NDT, too - and think that he is the only one, really, appropriate to take this task on - but I almost agree with R114 - I can understand him, but he has an almost sing-songy delivery, sort of condescending-sounding. Considering the bulk of his audience? Understandable.

R125, you are joking,right?

Wow, we actually like something!

Oh and...no, r130, God and evolution are not contradictory. Religious fairy tales and evolution are.

I'm sorry but I'm having a "MARY" moment. I literally cry tears when I hear Carl Sagan's voice at the end of these episodes.

I know, I'm tragic. . . . .

Guess I'm a MARY! too, R132.

I have to admit it: I saw the first episode and when he did that tribute to Sagan, I started crying.

I was never that big of a science geek or anything, but the kindness of that moment + all that nostalgia shit just hit me right in the feels.

R131, oh brother, not that God fairy-tale again!

Add another, 'Mary!' to the pile; it got to me, too.

CArl was a homo, I'm sure of it

I don't remember this show ever airing in the past. Is this an elder gay show?

here you go, sport

[quote]It wasn't so much "anti-religious" as it was completely truthful and fact-based when describing the very anti-science attitudes and behaviors in the 16th century. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to assert that the sun was just a star, and each star in the night sky was another sun for distant worlds.

[quote]The inquisition panel told him that such thoughts were heresy, after all, everyone knew that the Earth was created by God as the absolute center of the entire universe. For Bruno to suggest that there was nothing special about Earth from a cosmological point of view was to invite questions into the church's absolutely unquestionable authority over the rest of us poor sods. They were so threatened by this unorthodox thinking that they tortured him, excommunicated him, and burnt him at the stake.

The similarities to the present day persecution of "climate change deniers" is beyond chilling.

Tell it, r136. Please.

Creationists demand equal airtime on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s ‘Cosmos’ to provide ‘balance’

By Travis Gettys

Friday, March 21, 2014 14:10 EDT

Creationists held a pity party for themselves Thursday because “Cosmos” isn’t being fair and balanced to their beliefs.

“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all,” said Danny Falkner, of Answers In Genesis, which has previously complained about the show.

Falkner appeared Thursday on “The Janet Mefford Show” to complain the Fox television series and its host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, had marginalized those with dissenting views on accepted scientific truths, reported Right Wing Watch.

“I don’t recall seeing any interviews with people – that may yet come – but it’s based upon the narration from the host and then various types of little video clips of various things, cartoons and things like that,” Falkner said.

Mefferd said the show should at least offer viewers a false compromise.

“Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution, it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there, you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed,” she said.

Tyson recently said science reporting should not be balanced with nonscientific claims, so that seems unlikely he would offer that sort of fallacious argument on his own show.

“You don’t talk about the spherical Earth with NASA, and then say let’s give equal time to the flat Earthers,” Tyson told CNN. “Plus, science is not there for you to cherry pick.”

Falkner complained that Tyson showed life arose from simple organic compounds without mentioning that some believe that’s not possible.

“I was struck in the first episode where he talked about science and how, you know, all ideas are discussed, you know, everything is up for discussion – it’s all on the table – and I thought to myself, ‘No, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem,’” Falkner said.

creationists should have demanded that back when the original series aired in the late seventies. they missed the boat, clearly

R140, he may have ben a loving spouse (to three women) but he was a sexual homo

Creationists are just dumb. Fringe lunatics.

Wasn't Carl a pedo or am I thinking about that other, English, guy who lived in Sri Lanka?

I like the series for the content but those animations are distracting.

I realize some kind of parody of the old biblical cartoons that were common in the 70's and 80's and I appreciate the snark but the value added is questionable.

I guess they feel if kids are watching with their parents they need that to engage them but I don't know how true that is.

R120 According to what? Your fedora?

You're thinking of Arthur C. Clarke, r145. But you knew that.

Theists are so tedious.

No proof? Not even a tantalizing, 'my second cousin's secretary's best-friend from middle school told me, so it's true' story, R143? You disappoint me.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, after all.

According to science, R147.

So, this means no Cosmos scenes of Jesus riding a dinosaur?

[quote]The similarities to the present day persecution of "climate change deniers" is beyond chilling.

(rolling eyes)

No, not really. Today's Climate Change Deniers are nothing more or less than modern "the earth is flat" round world deniers of the base.

Ignorant morons.

they are idiots

Shouldn't the creationists be attending Freddie Phelps funeral? That way all the stupid people could be together in one place.

Another good episode tonight, but I can't help but feel this episode, like every one of them, left out some really critical and key moments of explanation... assuming viewers had more knowledge than they actually do.

I think smart people and liberals tend to assume too much on the part of their audience... and when they don't they tend to talk down. It's a fine art to be thorough in your explanation without being condescending.

Thankfully I don't think the show is coming off as condescending at all (I was worried about that), but I do think it leaves out important little bits that might help make more people grasp the deeper meanings or understand more fully or connect the dots better.

Tonight's episode put me to sleep. So boring. Zzzzzz.....

I loved it

It's really starting to get to me... how many statements are "generally true, but not completely true". So many things unexplained, or explained in a half-assed way.

Someone who didn't already know this stuff might get the wrong ideas, or might have serious questions that are just not getting answered (questions that shouldn't have ever come up).

This remake is fucking awful. Seth should just stick to doing cartoons.

I resent it for preempting part of my Sunday line up. I do like Neil Degrasse Tyson and the general subject matter. I still refuse to watch. I skip over to Adult Swim then ATL Housewives.

NDT is loathed by the right wingers, so I love him.

Why would they loathe NPH? He seems harmless enough.

I love this show as much as I loved the original. It's very well done.

However, the characters in the animations look, well, odd. The white people don't really look all that white.

I hope they make another season of this.

I find it jumps around too much, and only half-covers topics, and am annoyed by unnecessary scientific inaccuracies (mostly for dramatic effect). Sigh.

Still, it's good. Great even. Needed, definitely.

But I can't help feeling/knowing how much better it could be if it were a bit more focused. I've also seen several things explained better (even in old Cosmos episodes) and more clearly.

I thought the latest episode was marginally better, but it's still too incoherent. It seemed to jump from speed to gravity and back again, interspersed with cutaways that don't seem to serve a purpose (the baby, the NYC scenes). The animations in particular are very distracting.

I don't think show is succeeding in appealing to people who aren't interested in science.

I can't wait to watch

All it is is graphics. Style over substance. It's a dumb show brought to you by Seth MacFarlane. Nuff said.

I like it, but I love any kind of space stuff. I like NDT's calm/soothing delivery...and I like the way he walks. At first I thought the animated segments were a bit cheesy, but the actual info on the early astronomers was really interesting.

[quote] It's a dumb show brought to you by Seth MacFarlane.

I wonder which shows R169 considers "intelligent"

I agree with R170. the animation is purposeful in it's plainness - and I like NDT's commentary.

r171, why not ask what channels we consider intelligent? Are you too stupid to figure that one out?

Shut up, you gorgeous idiot. No one wants to argue about who's stupider. You're all dumb as shit for watching this.

I like the show, but he IS indeed a bit preachy on the evolution thing.

We get it, you're not into the religious beliefs, etc. And I'm cool with that. But he seems to be edging ever closer, with each episode, to schooling people with faith and other theories.

By no means should this show be religious or say we came from Adam and Eve, but NDG seems to be going out of his way to make his point instead of just allowing science to do that work.

Of course, it's Seth MacFarlane so...

He does make statements like, "some people hold beliefs. . " -things that Carl Sagan never felt compelled to state

r175 nice attempt at concern trolling.

However, it is Ann Druyan who wrote the episodes.

it's true.

GOd Damn, the commercials are fucking up the feeds terribly! I can't watch more than five minutes on a day, what a fucked up world we live in. The original was commercial free on PBS, what the fuck do we have now? FOX with it's endless cycling of appelbee's commercials that fuck up the feed!

FUCK IT

SNL did a skit about NDT being a guest on Fox and Friends

I thought that was an annoying skit (once Keenan Thomson came on), simply because I felt they were belittling NDT big-time.

disgusting

Keenan is a terrible performer, why hasn't he been replaced yet?

those sneaky neutrinos are fucking scary!

Nice write-up of last night's excellent episode:

[bold]Cosmos Explains Why Big Business Is Often the Foe of Science[/bold]

This week's episode of Cosmos tackles the Rock of Ages, the age of rocks and getting the lead out of our commitment to the environment. The episode takes the form of a fable, a cautionary tale about the dangers of letting any institution, but most especially science, fall into the clutches of the Argument From Authority and the ulterior motives of self-declared experts.

The show is so fucking ridiculous and poorly executed. I'm more interested in the fact that it's hosted by a black astrophysicist.

I love it

It's sad to see how 2 pompous assholes (Seth and Neil) managed to fuck up what was meant to be great

It seemed like everyone here liked it - an incredibly rare event. Then the trolls finally showed up when they realized that science is sometimes in opposition to corporate interests. If it were up to them we'd still have lead in everything causing serious illness and death. Maybe they ate some lead paint as children.

I'm excited for tonight!!

this series is demonstrably the equal of the previous, and I feel builds upon it. By using the example of Patterson trying to persuade vested business interests from our own time that environmental hazards are being wrought to benefit profit margins, this series makes specific what Sagan only obliquely referred to: science must always remain the purest form of inquiry, and all too easily it can be tainted by business, religious or political maneuvers.

No, it isn't and no, it doesn't. A dumbed down science show for simpletons.

The original was far superior. This is just a bunch of silly cartoons. When it got to the cartoon of the scientist walking through the streets seeing 'lead cancer' on everyone, all I could think of was the cheesy alien movie by John Carpenter called "They Live". I hate the fake dialogue, the whole simpleton approach to everything. It's all very Seth Macfarlane, and that's not what I want from a science show. You'd certainly have to be a complete moron to think this was superior to the original.

you need to get over yourself, it's just not that bad

R193, it's also not that GOOD. You know who 'needs to get over' themselves? Morons like you, for whom everything has had to be dumbed down. The fact is that the original Cosmos would never air today, because it's too smart. This silly cartoon show really exemplifies how stupid people have become.

it's not dumb, it's got a bad soundtrack, but all the right concepts are being addressed. You just aren't interested

People like R192 are insufferable and I don't even like the show.

R196, yes, everyone who dislikes garbage is 'insufferable'. Did you have to look the word up?

The last two episodes have been the best, imho, and have also deviated the farthest from the original show.

I agree, R176:

“In the way that scepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the sceptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.”

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Um, R192/4/7? Do us all a solid, and stay the fuck off the internet until your meds kick in? kthxbye.

a very good episode. not at all heavy-handed with its shout out to women astronomers. And true to the old series, through carl sagan I first learned of Hypatia, the greatest scientist in her time in alexandria, and her terrible fate. that unsung women heroes are a part of this series would make Sagan glad.

the graphics are glorious in this last episode too, inconceivable from the original. That being said, the viewing enjoyment from the original is well, less good. Simply turning on the TV at an appointed hour and if your rabbit-ears were adjusted right, getting an unobstructed clear viewing of a PBS special like the original cosmos was MUCH easier back then than this series marred by commercials that slow my bandwidth, sound distortions from DSL feed issues, and other things that make this series a completely different event from what carl sagan (and I) originally experienced.

[quote] the graphics are glorious

MARY!

They are

Dr. Tyson socked it to the climate change deniers last night.

Great ep, sticking it not just to climate change deniers, but also anti-evoluation creationists.

And yes, I can spell evolution.

Love Neil DeGeeGee T.

I'm loving it

Neil Degrassi High sucks donkey balls as a host. They should have updated the original one with better graphics but keeping Carl.

I'm watching it as I type this

I love this series

The show sucks and something is very wrong if people need cartoons to explain advanced concepts, but its success is reassuring in these idiotic times.

I gave up on it. Liked it at first, but I hate being preached to with anti-religion propaganda as much as I loathe and hate being preached to with pro-religion propaganda.

Seth McFarlane's personal message is all to clearly shilled via this show.

Just show us the science. People can make up our own damn minds on creationism and evolution.

Why does EVERYTHING these days have to pander to either the left or the right or be pro religion or anti religion?

It's tiresome. I don't need big brother telling me what to believe or not believe.

R213, honey, there was nothing anti-religion in this last episode, nor the one before. You need to calm down and go outside.

Of course facts are going to strike some as "anti-religion." That's just the nature of facts, and religion.

[quote]Of course facts are going to strike some as "anti-religion." That's just the nature of facts, and religion.

Truer words have not been typed, on this thread at least.

We have been so immersed in this "facts and opinions are of equal value" culture for the past 25 years or so, that when a program states a fact as just that, a fact, and doesn't stop to consider the myriad alternate opinions which others consider equally valid, then it is insensitive and "hostile to religion."

Balls to that.

It's the marketplace of [italic]ideas[/italic] and the currency used therein is facts. That's it. Nothing else. No need to warn people that they might hear a fact that makes them feel conflicted inside. No need to put a big warning on the show "WARNING: this show deals with scientific facts, and therefore might cause personal discomfort to those who hold non-empirical belief systems as equally valid."

In the arena of facts, you certainly have options to redress whichever facts upset you: conduct your own experiments! Present your own evidence! Allow others to reproduce your findings and verify that you have refuted existing facts! Unlike religion, science welcomes that process, no, [italic]depends[/italic] on that process, and is always changing its summary of what we know about any particular thing (or what we know about everything in the cosmos) as these new facts emerge from the rigors of peer-reviewed investigations and consist of reproducible results. But maybe you do need to be shaken a little bit to remind you of something important: unless and until your beliefs produce verifiable, reproducible facts, they simply have no value, that's zero value, in the discussion of ideas.

The really sad thing is that at one time, everyone--even the average guy/gal on the street--knew this. We have truly lost at least one generation of Americans (i.e. who have no understanding of the scientific method, or of the difference between facts and opinions, or between evidence and beliefs). Hopefully, the success of this show might be a promising indication that eyes can be opened again and our impending idiocracy delayed for a century or so.

nothing at all about this series is "hostile to religion"

[quote]We have been so immersed in this "facts and opinions are of equal value" culture for the past 25 years or so, that when a program states a fact as just that, a fact, and doesn't stop to consider the myriad alternate opinions which others consider equally valid, then it is insensitive and "hostile to religion."

I flagged this for wit and wisdom. So very true.

a thought for today

[quote]Just show us the science. People can make up our own damn minds on creationism and evolution.

You are a class A idiot. The show IS just showing you the science. Evolution is fact. Of course they're not going to present creationism on a science show.

[quote]Why does EVERYTHING these days have to pander to either the left or the right or be pro religion or anti religion?

Science doesn't lean left or right. Science is just science, you moron.

[quote]It's tiresome. I don't need big brother telling me what to believe or not believe.

So ignorant. Please be a frau and not be gay. We would be so ashamed.

[quote]It's tiresome. I don't need big brother telling me what to believe or not believe.

[quote]So ignorant. Please be a frau and not be gay. We would be so ashamed.

Please allow me to apologize to my friend at R220. He obvioulsy had a stressful day, and in his rush to make this personal by hurling out insulting names, he managed to neglect including some very important factual information. His corrected statement should read "Please be a [bold]barren, childless frau[/bold] and not be gay." As you can see, that very important omission also has nothing to do with shame, and everything to do with fearing for the future of our species. Thanks for understanding.

It's still a great show, better than most of the tripe on the air now

Wow, R213 is a fucking moron. Unfortunately, they're exactly the sort of person who SHOULDN'T be giving up on this show, and SHOULD watch every episode, with their complete attention.

Because they're the ones that most desperately need it.

Amen, R216

it's a delight of a series.

I really enjoyed last night's episode, but since no one else likes the series, I'll quit the thread

I'm so sad that is has ended

[quote] I'm so sad that is has ended

What has ended? The thread, or the series? Episode 12 is on this Sunday.

Oh, there are twelve?

this last episode was WORTH the wait. you fucking imbecile who ballyhooed this series as fool's errand can go fuck off

GOD DAMn you fickle bitches.

this was a terribly good episode, but after the first four I suppose the kardashians hold more interest, right, cunts?

I love the show but the subject of Global Warming is boring so I turned to Game of Thrones.

I'm catching up on past weeks shows. I learned one really cool thing tonight. I've always wondered how they could tell that certain meteorites on Earth originated on Mars. They can do so by measuring the composition of gases trapped within the rock, and compare with rocks on the Martian surface.

Has it occurred to anyone that God might have created the Earth with fossils already in the ground? All of creation might have been created in 7 days, but in such a manner that it all evidence would suggest it unfolded over billions of years? This would satisfy both the fundies and the scientists. Plus, it would be a much more efficient use of time by the All Mighty.

It had occurred, and it was proven incorrect

Says who, Satan?

Says scientific research, dumdum

"Dumdum", ha! You made me laugh, thank you!

Too many commercials, though.

I agree, back during the Sagan series it was on PBS with no commercials.

Last Sunday's episode was engaging, interesting, and even brilliant.

It should be required viewing for all Americans.

Every single lawmaker and leader and CEO should be required to sit through it twice.

I work with him at AMNH. He's a cunt. You should see the email he sent a few days before the series premier. He's a cunt. I could tell you some good stories.

Who, r242? Neil DT? Do tell.

Don't give a shit, R242. The good he does outshines any dickishness he might show to those in his immediate vicinity.

He's probably a cunt, who cares. I don't work with him.

He probably just doesn't suffer fools gladly. And why should he have to? People who complain he's a bitch are probably just fools he doesn't have the time or patience for.

I really think they should be showing this series to every student in every High School in the country.

I agree, very well done

A marvel, I can't wait for the next episode

r232, is that the show with the MIDGET on it?!?!?

cheap thrills

Will there be a Season 2?

The beginning of a new universe

I'm hoping for a season 2 actually.

There's so much more that could be covered, and should be covered.

And NDT was great.

I do miss the original show's score though... it was so much more memorable and inspiring.

I also hope they re-run both this series and the original at some point.

Glad to see this new series coming out on DVD/BlueRay next week though. With extras.

I might actually spring for it.

I might too

Whom do we harass to get more seasons of this show made?

R242,

Tell us the dirt! We need to know. We have to know!

The season finale was a masterpiece, a love letter to Carl - and to the human race. Thank you, Ann.

Crying as I type this

Love him. So is he gay or just nerdy?

He was on Bill Maher's show recently, did anyone see it? I haven't yet.

r252 Yes! Coming next year.

Cosmos with Sagan made a major cultural impact. Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson made barely a ripple.

Carl was an inspiring teacher. Neil is a smarmy rapist.

It made plenty of ripples, you just weren't receptive because a black guy was delivering the message this time around.

I actually found the preview at R262somewhat chilling - I know "MARY!" - especially how it began with Sagan's own words. Grateful for Seth MacFarlane to actually have enough pull to get two seasons produced and aired.