National Geographic News
A photo of Neil Tyson, host of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey.

Host Neil deGrasse Tyson participated in FOX's "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" panel at the Television Critics Association winter press tour, on Monday, January 13, 2014.

PHOTOGRAPH BY FRANK MICELOTTA, INVISION FOR FOX/AP

Dan Vergano

National Geographic News

Published March 9, 2014

In its first airing, Cosmos created a new star, Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan. The seminal series opened the eyes of millions to the universe and made a science celebrity out of Sagan.

Now astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson is stepping up to star in a 13-part remake of the series on the National Geographic Channel and Fox. The first show airs on Sunday, March 9 (at 9 p.m. ET/PT), and will be broadcast in more than 70 nations—the biggest launch ever for a global TV series.

National Geographic spoke to Tyson, the director of the American Museum of Natural History's Hayden Planetarium, about life, the universe, and the "cosmic perspective" Cosmos will offer viewers.

Q: Why re-create Cosmos? Why now?

A: Any time is good for Cosmos. A lot of things have come together to make this the right time to do it. We have come so far in the last 34 years—more than a generation. Clearly it’s time for another Cosmos.

Since then we have discovered a thousand new planets. A lot has changed.

Back in 1980 we were trapped in a Cold War mind-set, which polarized people and affected everything. People thought of the environment as a local thing. They didn't think of the global environment and how we are all connected. (Click the video below to watch an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson.)

What's new about this Cosmos?

With Cosmos, this version, we're able to bring a whole tool kit of storytelling cinematics to bear on the science, the history, the culture, and the politics to fill people with a sense of wonder about our universe.

It might even impact people spiritually. I mean that with a little s. That’s the reaction some people might feel by gaining the cosmic perspective—seeing that we are just a small part of the vastness of everything. But that can be emotionally fulfilling in a very deep way.

What are the most important advances you’ve seen since 1980 that the new Cosmos will consider?

The purpose of Cosmos is not to be a textbook to tell people about the latest discoveries. The whole point of telling these stories is to allow you to understand that science, the scientific method, is central to all of our lives.

Yes, we'll learn more science, about the scientific method. But what we really want is for people to say, "Wow, I didn't know we were all connected in that way." That's the goal.

Why is understanding the scientific method so important?

Because it's how we make discoveries and how we understand and survive in our world today.

Just think for how long humanity was controlled by mystical, magical thinking—the diseases and suffering that led to. We managed to survive, but just barely. It wasn't pretty.

Is that why the astronomy in Cosmos is ultimately so important? It's more than just discoveries—it's a way of seeing the world?

Exactly. Every one of us at one time or another has looked up, unless you're locked in a cave, and wondered. To understand the universe and the search for life, Cosmos opens the door to all the other fields of science, to everything.

The viewer will see the science all around us, will see that biology, that geology, that physics are all connected today.

Modern astrophysics is spreading into all sorts of fields. There is now astrobiology (the study of alien life), planetary geology (earth science on other planets), and even astroparticle physics, where we take advantage of astronomical observations to answer fundamental physics questions.

The word "astro" is being appended to all these different professions because the universe is telling us that they’re all connected and that we are part of the universe.

That's a theme Carl Sagan returned to a lot on the original Cosmos. How do you feel about stepping into his shoes?

I don't think that’s what I'm doing. I already have a role in the science community and in science popularization and education. I can't fill his shoes, but I can certainly fill my own even further, to be a really awesome version of myself.

The goal is not to be Carl Sagan. We want to continue telling the story of Cosmos. I'm just the next storyteller.

What's with the spaceship on the new Cosmos? It looks like a cell phone.

(Laughs.) It's quite different from the original Spaceship of the Imagination (piloted by Sagan). A lot of viewers had asked, What's up with that? And I myself might have had a few questions.

The new spacecraft has been reimagined, and it's stunning. It really helps tell the story, and it only appears when we need it.

It's a minimalist spacecraft. That's not a cell phone. I've been a minimalist my whole life, even if you wouldn't know it from my office.

What's the one thing, or things, you want viewers to walk away with after seeing the new Cosmos?

I want people to come away compelled to recognize the cosmic perspective on their own lives. Once they recognize that the universe is bigger than we can imagine, it's supremely humbling. But it really compels us to take better care of this tiny, pale blue dot that we live on.

I want people to see that the cosmic perspective is simultaneously honest about the universe we live in and uplifting, when we realize how far we have come and how wonderful is this world of ours.

This interview has been edited and condensed. Follow Dan Vergano on Twitter.

76 comments
Spencer Arabie
Spencer Arabie

Seriously.... People can think it's not possible life evolved from a single microscopic spec but rather believe in religion/or God whom supposably created an entire world in 7 days as if it was "sim city," and it took that long or should take such power to do so...??...?? How long do you think it took HIM to Harry Potter wand zap the rest of the universe into existence?.. Lol!!! HE probably helped Moses part the Red Sea too right? All religions are a form of government that stabilize an guide humanities beliefs from chaos. Also if you are a believer in God then you must believe in aliens since they are carved, etched, drawn, and described in or on many biblical an ancient artifacts, scriptures, scrolls, etc.. Just saying if we were made in Gods image then why are innocent young children or just people in general dying from cancer and diseases before they have a chance to enjoy life? I'm really sure that's what HE wanted

Timothy Lee
Timothy Lee

Challenge,  Theory--- dark or missing matter is "transitional matter,"it is neither what it was ,or yet ,what it is to become,in transition it still has mass and is still matter.It must do this in time ,finite as it may be nothing can move faster than the speed of light.Without going into detail this will fill the spaces in the periodic table.Everything is nothing without time,all would cease to exist in transition if this is not true. Timothy Lee

Eileen Jackson
Eileen Jackson

As a scientist and an educator I so appreciate Fox for airing this critically important series. We must put science back in the public discourse if we are to survive as a species and as a country.

Don White
Don White

I personally loved Cosmos as a 7-12 year old growing up. I bought Carl Sagan's hardback photo illustrated book of the cosmos and i enjoy it today. To see it through the lens of another learned individual in the realm of science means i may learn something new.


The classic was great; Carl was most assuredly an adept at conveying his thoughts. But the way he wrote his books speaks not of individual accomplishment in portraying the universe. He wrote it in a scientific bent. This means that others, such as the new host of Cosmos, should and are obligated to share with us their insights on the universe.


I am relatively old as far as student go, I am 40 years old. I see the world through the lens of child like wonder. Everything new i learn in chemistry or stellar astronomy opens my eyes to how narrow my view was previously. 


If we are to properly appreciate science we need to cultivate within ourselves a sense of wonder and for those that are really into it, a sense of the "numinous". It s that awe inspiring wonder that keeps me grinding through the basics of chemistry or for that matter contemplating Chandrasekar's limit for the formation of a quantum singuarlity.


Thank you Carl, Professor Collier and Doctor Tyson for all your insights. 


I look forward to watching it.

Zoe Brain
Zoe Brain

Paul Collins Broun, Jr. is the U.S. Representative for Georgia's 10th congressional district, serving since 2007. He is a member of the Republican Party and the Tea Party Caucus. He is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3MbP4WDo

Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson

How is it more logical to believe everything came out of nothing and appeared as a small dot smaller that this . and something happened and boom; here we are?

That's faith my friend not Science.

Hypocrites

John Sawtelle
John Sawtelle

Well I watched COSMOS last night and have the following reaction.

I found it cartoonish, aimed at an uneducated 8th grader.  The unusual amount of time spent on the Bruno immolation by the Catholic church was excessive. Young uneducated minds need to have a historical perspective however with this type of presentation youngsters tend to see it in a contemporary venue, having no other reference; consequently sparking protected outrage.  Some of the theories of physics were presented as if fact yet some Nobel laureates consider them interesting speculation; i.e., multiple universes and the moon's creation. Overall, I'd give it a C-; somewhat effective but distorted. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

N Boyer
N Boyer

There will be 13 episodes.  I think it's far too early in the series to make such critical judgments as I've already read here.  Of course the first episode is an introduction...a summary of what is to come in following episodes.  Introductions are generally not very deep in presenting knowledge.  I'm sure that each episode to come will explain some of the general statements made tonight in more detail.  I am pleased to see the Cosmos being continued.  Much has been learned since Carl Sagan's days and I hope that this program will inspire more students at all levels to consider astrophysics as well as other sciences as a career option.  I hope it will also inspire a new generation of science teachers and inspire all current teachers to teach science to our kids whether directly in their science classes or indirectly in their other classes such as reading, art, physical education or social studies.  It is all interconnected.  So, let's hold off on the early negative criticism.  Let's give this series a little more time to teach and inspire us.  It may succeed.


S C
S C

NEW COSMOS DISPPOINTS - MISSES OPPORTUNITY


I grew up watching Mr. Carl Sagan and his COSMOS and was thrilled to hear NG would be debuting a fresh new version!  Instead, I found it had little in common with the original. Much of it seemed 'dumbed-down', with condescending asides and distracting graphic elements that could've been better produced, especially with the talent and tools out there for artists. The childish graphics were not only uninspired and clumsy, the heavy 'fake' accents in the cartoon segments were offensive and divisive.


The original COSMOS spoke to all ages, and had a much more appealing voice and ethos - it was welcoming, questioning, thoughtful and inspiring. It was respectful of other cultures and times, too. I could watch it over and over - enjoying the nuance and subtlety of Mr. Sagan's presentation.


Perhaps the student Mr. Degrasse Tyson didn't really 'get' his teacher. Or the editors and producers made poor decisions and left the brightness of the student's work on the cutting room floor. Either way, the show missed the mark by a galaxy or two.


Such a pity. An incredible disappointment. And a missed opportunity.

Dan Jacobson
Dan Jacobson

i thought it very weak compared to 'The Universe'

also just an obscene amount of commercial breaks

Joshua Jerrick
Joshua Jerrick

I watched the show last night it was amazing. Made me look deeply at the universe or even the possibility of a multi verse. Exploring how the universe has effected the lives of human beings. Showing at once how ignorant we once were and now that we have this knowledge we are enlightened. To describe how much of a deep level this show has reached me could not be described by words.   

Robert Boutiere
Robert Boutiere

As far as reaching an audience with entertaining science, I think it would have been better to just replay the Carl Sagan classic for a new generation. This is no improvement except to look and feel more like kid stuff. Especially with the laughable animation. COSMOS may have been stuffy, but to put the viewer right there (as best as possible) at historic moments was by far more effective. It's also hard to match Sagan when it comes to enthusiasm for his material.... I think to be honest, any science program dealing even momentarily with how life began should come clean and clearly state that science doesn't know. Not even enough to posit a Scientific Theory that can be tested and observed. He implies the lie that he knows, but how inanimate matter starts feeding, breathing, and reproducing is unknown. If we knew, we'd be creating it from scratch in a test tube. (Not that we haven't tried.) He points to a tidal pool saying "Life began here." How does he know that it didn't arrive on a comet? He can speculate, but cannot make bold statements. Only a very agnostic view of creation is logical.... Likewise he speculates about coal, "It both powers and imperils the civilization." I think I'm probably just as qualified as he on the subject. His fields are astrophysics and philosophy.  Or if nothing else, I can find HUNDREDS of scientists IN that field that disagree with him. No need to lose sleep, coal is NOT threatening civilization. Not even in the top 50 of threats if you peruse astronomy, geology, WMD's, and epidemiology . He says, "I'm just repeating what science says." But in this case it's 'bad science'. I think the phony consensus on Global Warming the IPCC drummed up is being debunked at every turn. Despite coal plants opening every other day around the world, there's been no GW for 15 years. The "Pause", as they now explain why their theories are so much wishful thinking. (That's their 'inconvenient truth'.) To me, Dr. Tyson's ready acceptance of such, may mean he's not much of a scientist himself. There is a scientific controversy going on, not just a political one. Or, IMHO, he's pandering to the political lies of the Left. Either way, I think I'm done with him. Science comes from the Greek meaning 'truth'. I think this show plays a little too loose with it.

Lisa Causey
Lisa Causey

My husband and I both watched Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson last night and enjoyed it very much!!  We are looking forward to next week's episode!     :)

steve robin
steve robin

The creation of the cosmos is the greatest story every told.  The creation of the earth and neighboring planets is the result of chance.  For life to have begun on earth is again  the result of extreme odds.  Had a large asteroid not hit the earth 65 million years ago humans may never have evolved and dinosaurs may still have been the predominate creatures on this planet. 

Rodolfo Alonzo
Rodolfo Alonzo

I always enjoyed the original Cosmos series, books. Carl Sagan made you feel comfortable about science. Look forward to latest discoveries in high definition. Keep up the good work National Geographic.

David Frazier
David Frazier

I was thrilled to enjoy Cosmos once again. I felt PRIDE when I saw the president take time to introduce the program. We really need Cosmos to be part of our culture once again.

eric ward
eric ward

Amazing is not strong enough of a word.  Very inspiring my two sons aged 9 and 12 now want to be scientist. Can't want for next week. 

Tor Münkov
Tor Münkov

Thank you Seth Macfarlane and Ann Druyan for creating a 21st Century version of Cosmos. Billions and billions of thanks.

Kirk Peffers
Kirk Peffers

One thing I didn't understand: The moon moved away from the Earth because of tidal waves? 

Lenin Robles
Lenin Robles

Mr Tyson and company,


Thank you so much! I am glad the show does not pull any punches specially when it deals with religion. The public in the US needs to be better educated on not only our cosmos but also the detrimental role that religion played in our interrogation of nature. I live in the bible belt where legislation is always being drafted to challenge evolution or to "teach the controversy." We need more TV shows like this to educate kids on the reality of nature and their true human origins. 

Kathleen Rowe
Kathleen Rowe

The new Cosmos is long on graphics; short on information. The distracting "imagination spaceship" should be Photoshopped out. The direct attack on creationists via the Catholic church was, although accurate, an egregiously stupid thing to do because you don't make friends by attacking them head on. Sagan could teach you more in ten minutes than this thing did in the whole hour. Very disappointing.

Gregos Web
Gregos Web

@Charles Wilson   Oversimplifying the scientific point of view and then easily knocking down the strawman you just made is too easy. Believing that your "Magic Sky Daddy" waved his hands and went "POOF!" that's way harder.

Don White
Don White

@Charles Wilson Gotta tell ya, im not convinced by that statement. Could use a little more detail on your premise. If you're speaking of Hydrogen in the universe... well then you must know that this resource is limited; regardless of how abundant it is in the known universe.


If you're speaking of the numinous... well that is purely a subjective experience and not meant for other audience's but yourself.


Science and spirituality are tied in very intimately. You cant have one without the other. You cant have cold hard numbers without the subjective experience of spirit. One element leads to another and in this situation it isn't which is more given to take or receive; it is based purely upon our own individual experiences and demographics that we are raised with :)

Joseph Redden
Joseph Redden

@Charles Wilson It's not faith. It is an idea that came about because of evidence. I won't say that science isn't a belief system but to ever compare Science to religion is ignorant.

Albert Clerc
Albert Clerc

@John Sawtelle  I agree wholeheartedly. Putting the Bruno controversy in the form of animation that portrays the Church as evil and demonic is nothing more than propaganda and a continuation of the pillorying of the Catholic Church as anti-science when the truth of the matter is that the church supports scientific reason as long as it stays within the realm of reason and not theology. The first to propose the"bigBang Theory" was in fact a priest.

Huw Powell
Huw Powell

@John Sawtelle Lol you are a loser and barely informed. 

I am sure of, course, that you are a PhD physicist and also have a doctorate in biology.

S C
S C

@N Boyer

I, too, hope to see the next generation of scientists inspired to take our collective learning to the next level. I'll hope for better, and will tune in with optimism. What you may be interpreting as premature negativity can also be seen as a call for better standards that cater to the higher common denominator. Scientists of today and tomorrow ought to look at what's fed to them with critical eyes, thus is scientific inquiry advanced and academic rigor encouraged.

With their talented staff and deep resources, NatGeo is fully capable of delivering a series with such grand intent that is better crafted, more thoughtfully produced, and reaches closer to the high standard of the original. They can do better. They should do better. Especially if they want this Cosmos to age as well as the last Cosmos series.  (PS, I didn't meant to 'shout' in my earlier post - had the all caps on by mistake. S.C.)

Jeff Scherr
Jeff Scherr

@Robert Boutiere  I'm sorry, but no.  I'm 33 years old and am just young enough to not have grown up with the Carl Sagan Cosmos.  About 3 years ago I got interested in the current state of astrophysics.  I got all jazzed up to watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos and...  dud.  Again, I'm sorry, but, they are out-DATED.  I struggled to finish the first one.  At the time I'm sure they were fascinating, and awe-inspiring and it sounds like they possibly fueled your imagination and curiosity to find a science based career?

That's why this Cosmos reboot is not aimed at you. Nor me, for that matter. Children born into the age of the Internet of things need a program like this with CURRENT, exciting speculation around the physics and the nature of our world, to fuel curiosity in finding that truth you are speaking about.

Michael Fuchs
Michael Fuchs

@Kirk Peffers  Not really tidal “waves” but certainly tidal effects.It’s too bad I can’t draw a picture to help explain this, but you’ve got a couple of ways to think about it:

1) Earth’s tidal bulge pulls on the moon.  And since Earth rotates more quickly than the moon revolves, this pull effectively “slingshots” the moon into an ever larger orbit.

2) There’s a tidal “friction” that slows down the rotation of Earth.  Because of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, if Earth looses some then the moon must gain an equal amount.  The moon gains angular momentum by moving farther away.

These effects are still going on today.

Ed Jime
Ed Jime

@Kathleen Rowe  Considering how badly religion has attacked and been trying to destroy science lately, the new version was needed.  It aims at trying to re-teach science to the young and old, with the old regressing in knowledge and imagination almost to the level of the young because of the de-emphasis on education and science.

Darrell Gordon
Darrell Gordon

@Kathleen RoweGotta agree with you, Ms. Rowe.  About half way through, I had to change the channel due to excessive sugar overload. Like the President who introduced it, this is all eye candy and no substance.  This, from the same Prez who cancelled the NASA Shuttle program, leaving the US to depend on Russia to build and launch US space missions!  (Can you say Ukraine?)  

Darrell Gordon
Darrell Gordon

@Kathleen Rowe I must agree with you, Ms. Rowe.  About half way through, I had to change the channel due to excessive sugar overload. Like the President who introduced it, this piece is mostly eye candy and no substance.  Seth McFarland?  Cartoons?  During an adult hour of 9-10:00pm? 

This, introduced by the very same Prez who cancelled the NASA Shuttle program, leaving the US to depend on Russia to build and launch US space missions. (Can you say "Ukraine"?)  

Eco Jack
Eco Jack

@Kathleen Rowe That was hardly a "direct attack on creationists." While, I agree it was light on facts.  Their goal with #Cosmos is to engage the scientifically unengaged with the excitement & wonder of science.  Your negativity is only judgmental, not critical. 

Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson

@Gregos Web @Charles Wilson

Over complicating things can be just as wrong...

Some will say "You must make it as complicated as you can. This way you keep the simple fooled."

"Believing that your "Magic Sky Daddy" waved his hands and went "POOF!" that's way harder."


Well, back at you

Believing that all matter for which we don't know where it came,was compressed into a small dot and Poof the Big Bang" Is harder because you are arguing from the point verifiable proof and you have none. At least religion admits that its faith.


I call both religion because both live and die on the faith of the believer.

Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson

@Don White @Charles Wilson
Don, I believe you can teach science without the Big Bang. The majority of science text books and teachers speak as if The Big Bang Theory is irrefutable. If you honest you will admit that. However that is far from the truth.
 
I propose:  If you were to take Judaism and The Big Bang and explained their position on the origin of the universe to a stranger who had never heard of either and had no preconceived conclusions of their own..While explaining; you never use the terms Religion and or Science.
I believe the stranger would walk away equating the two as plausible myths seeing you can't prove either one.

My position is The Big Bang is equal to Religions when it comes to irrefutable facts.. Neither should be taught to the unwilling participants in the public schools. Adults can decide for themselves.

Eileen Jackson
Eileen Jackson

@Joseph Redden @Charles WilsonScience is not a belief system it is a way of seeking evidence that is valid and reliable. What we do with the evidence is what often appears to be a belief system.

Don White
Don White

@Joseph Redden @Charles WilsonI gotta tell ya man; we know far too little to say one way or the other. Science is building upon a pier one slat board at a time at a very slow rate. This last statement is in light of the scientific method. The scientific method is itself predicated upon a series of accidental finds that leads us to the next great or minute find that furthers our humanity and our understanding of the known universe.


The scientific method relies upon standing on the shoulders of giants such as Einstein and Newton. It means exploring and examining the minute details of the previous researcher to further the betterment of humanity as a whole and not as individual city states, local governments or nations. 


That being said it is the same goal that any true system of spirituality bases its core system of normal social morays etc. The betterment of the whole versus just the individual being the standard mean. 


So how is science better than spirituality? Can we explain the behaviors of such things as gluons or particles much smaller through purely scientific method? I think not. Examine Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Schoedenger's though experiment on the cat in the box and you will clearly see the level of uncertainty is just about on par with what the bible banger standing on the street corner is proclaiming.


I prefer to geek out and research all variables and accept a more probable whole versus specific train of thought appproach.


Just my two cents.

Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson

Ok, we have a Hypothesis where science is using observations and test on ONE of the TRILLIONS of possible planets out there.


You brilliant people fail to acknowledge that your Hypothesis is based on a preconceived conclusion that the Earth was created at the same time and from the same materials as all the other Planets. Lets not mention Stars, and all the other material in the universe.  


 

This theory is inconclusive at best., Therefore, it take faith to believe in it... 

Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson

How is it less faith for one to belive a Star or Planet that is 60 light years away was created at the same time and from the same materials as our Star  or Planet?

There is no way to observe or test this theory/hypothesis

Sciences objection to religion is based on the same standard of not being able to observe or test.

So you could say that both ride in the same boat called Faith.

Joseph Redden
Joseph Redden

@Albert Clerc @John Sawtelle The Catholic Church has NEVER been supportive of scientific reason. Pick up any history book. The story of Bruno wasn't propaganda, it was one of thousands upon thousands of heinous disgusting acts the church has committed throughout history. Using Bruno was just a simple was to demonstrate the limited and small view the Church has always had.

Joseph Redden
Joseph Redden

@Albert Clerc @John Sawtelle The Catholic Church has NEVER been supportive of scientific reason. Pick up any history book. The story of Bruno wasn't propaganda, it was one of thousands upon thousands of heinous disgusting acts the church has committed throughout history. Using Bruno was just a simple was to demonstrate the limited and small view the Church has always had.

Kathleen Rowe
Kathleen Rowe

@Giuliano A. @Kathleen RoweThanks for the referral. However, at that hour it should not be aimed for children which, I think, is what the parent who wrote it is implying. As well, I noted a comment from another poster who praised the "new" cosmic calendar. Sagan did the cosmic calendar first, so I think that, instead of plagiarizing it, they could have used a timeline image this time around. (sigh) The parent indicated, "People complaining about fluff and about too much CGI... Remember who this is aimed for." Apparently, I'm not the only one with the complaint, and I can't "remember" who this is aimed for since indications were that it was for everyone, including those of us who marveled at the original. Running from 9:00-10:00 p.m. tells me adults, not kids. I like Tyson, but this thing was poorly written. Thanks for trying but, my view stands as originally stated.

Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson

@Emberdink Humberdit
Sorry for holding the same standard to your Theory as you hold to the worlds Religious Theories.

Help me understand - The Big Bang theory should be taught as one of the only acceptable theories because it is always in a state of perpetual study.
NOT because we have concluded our study on our planet, the other side of the universe and the nearest galaxies. 

It should be taught because we are still studying and trying to prove it correct?

Emberdink Humberdit
Emberdink Humberdit

@Charles Wilson

Charles, you are ranting.  Do the world a favor.  Put down the bible and buy yourself a dictionary.

Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson

@Don White @Charles Wilson
You said "The big bang theory hasn't run the complete cycle through the scientific method"

This is quite deceitful.
The majority of the Big Bang hasn't been through any part of the scientific method as there hasn't been a way of observing or testing it.


This is the double standard. ----You just said of religion
 "You cannot prove they happened unless through special example like tibetan monks controlling their vital signs while having their brainwaves monitored"
Well, you could say - You cannot prove the big bang unless through the mind of a monk like scientist who try to control the brain waves of others.


You said "I would want my daughter to be exposed to many ideas and let her decide what is best for her life within reason".--- So now that we have admitted the Big Bang is equal to Religion when it comes to verifiable evidence; are you are ok with opening up classrooms to religions?

Don White
Don White

@Charles Wilson @Don Whitethe big bang is a theory. It is not proven fact and the scientific community knows that. Most scientists, those that are truly open minded, know that there is too much unknown about the universe to simply rest on a theory. Discoveries are made everyday in science and mos times they are accidental. The big bang theory hasn't run the complete cycle through the scientific method. The strongest evidence of anything going on in the known universe is that most distant galaxies are red shifted which indicates that they are moving away from us. It does not necessarily prove or disprove the big bang. We are also at a disadvantage in that observing radiowaves or light from distant stars and galaxies took many millions or billions of years to reach us. How do we know that what we are observing here actually still exists at its point of origin?


Religion, as you well know, also is equally difficult to prove out. If we go one step further and we examine the mystical systems within the major religions of the world they are share one common and fallible trait; most experiences are subjective and not objective. You cannot prove they happened unless through special example like tibetan monks controlling their vital signs while having their brainwaves monitored. These are special examples only and by themselves prove nothing.


Willing participants or not children deserve to be able to choose for themselves to some extent, on their own, whether or not they wish to pursue religion or the austerity of hard science. To deprive them of the wonders of what we know to this point would be to limit their experience. You as the parent have the right to have your child removed from such exposure. Me personally? 

I would want my daughter to be exposed to many ideas and let her decide what is best for her life within reason. I will support her regardless. I will not be the limiting factor that keeps her from learning about the world around her.

Spencer Arabie
Spencer Arabie

Evolution is def a fact. It's a genetically adaptive process to learn an survive species from extinction... Otherwise they would have named it evolution "theory"... Hints the reason the Big Bang, relativity, string, etc. are called theory's cuz they are ONLY logical scientific facts in which forms the possibility of the IDEA until there are ways to actually be able to physically test it.

Eileen Jackson
Eileen Jackson

@Charles Wilson The difference is that in science we can always learn that we were wrong. Therefore it is never a matter o believing. It is about accepting what we know is our best information thus far.

Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson

@Roberto Velasquez @Charles Wilson


Don't hide behind scientific theory when the hypothesis is being taught as FACT... Big Bang and Evolution is not taught as a current Hypothesis. They are taught as irrefutable fact.

If you hold the same standard of irrefutable proof that you use for religions, The Big Bang and Evolution fall just as short...

Yes I said it... The Big Bang and Evolution are unprovable.You have nothing but a preconceived conclusion as to the origin of the universe. Science has no way of observing or testing the other side of the Universe and Religion has no way to observe or test the other side of life.

Both live and die on preconceived conclusions. 


Den Harwood
Den Harwood

@Kathleen Rowe @Giuliano A.No show can be all things to all people.  The intent was not to teach new facts but to raise awareness of the Cosmos, Science and critical thinking.  The show did not plagiarize anything as the producer is Carl Sagan's wife and colleague.  Having CGI to help illustrate and enthrall may be clutter to many, but this endeavor is throwing a very wide net and not all the "fishys" will be be as captivated as some.  Even though this show aired late at night which is truly regrettable, no doubt this will be shown in schools at a later date.  Further, video recorders and DVRs will bring it to a younger audience in many homes.  The oversight in the airing time will be overcome by caring elders.

 In all comment sections everywhere I see negative comments that are not needed, many politically or ideologically motivated.  There will always be things that fall short of our expectations but that is as much an err in anticipation as it is to the presentation judged.  That being said, perhaps a more forgiving tone in your commentary was in order.  My warm regards for you and your passion.

Share

Feed the World

See blogs, stories, photos, and news »

Latest From Nat Geo

See more photos »