When Carl Sagen’s “Cosmos” was launched decades ago, an inspiring comment was conveyed by Sagen’s melodic voice when it stated, "The cosmos is all that is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Personal_Voyage
Unfortunately the breakthroughs in physics reveal that Sagen was wrong. If Sagen was in error about his opening premise for “Cosmos”, then the entire presupposition that accompanied his opening statement is also suspect.http://www.christianpost.com/news/cosmos-vs-master-designer-116334/
A revamp of the “Cosmos” series offers some brilliant speculation concerning the “Cosmos” always being in existence and the buzz phrase of “mindless evolution” is clearly a swipe at Creation and Intelligent Design. There are much better adjectives one can attribute to evolution without going out of way to annoy doubters of a dubious theory.
Things got off to an interesting start in the first series of Cosmos when an inordinate amount of time was spent on building a case against the Catholic Church and insinuating that the killing of a Dominican friar was due to claiming the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Well, real students of history know that Giordano Bruno was not burned at the stake for putting Earth in its proper orbit around the sun as many anti-religious zealots love to embellish, but was martyred for preaching anti-trinitarian universalism and other religious heresies. Do not pass go, and do not collect a hundred dollars on this error.
It is difficult for information stated by Sagen 30-years ago to hold up to the scrutiny of science advancing forward with the cutting edge breakthroughs with Higgs-boson and “chaotic inflation” which directly refutes Sagen’s call of a universe that “is all that is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.”
There’s a new sheriff in town that declares the universe not only had a beginning, but birthed a multitude of universes that are still bursting forth and expanding in creation. Take you pick…God or Physicist Andrei Linde of Stanford.http://www.examiner.com/article/stanford-s-andre-linde-s-cosmic-revelation-has-towering-religious-implications?cid=db_articles
Perhaps one needs to be mindless to accept that there is no designer although existence appears to have a design. Order from chaos and complexity from simplicity are sort of a reverse thermodynamics for those that dogmatically insist that everything took place by the most ridiculous amounts of probability ever contrived. How can anyone seriously bank on 10 X 40,000th power probability for life to begin by accident?
Granted the new “Cosmos” offers the standard assumptions to prop up its own theology, but one would think they could at least offer some challenges of science that dispute the “mindless evolution” ideal. Rarely are scientific issues as biogenesis, Mendel’s Theory, or the problem of inorganic material birthing organic life even presented as a legitimate rebuttal to evolution.
Also, the problem of insufficient transitional species and the sudden appearance of such a tremendous variety of species should be at least addressed as a scientific problem instead of being subjected to all of the indoctrination rah-rah of one thought. The search for truth can hardly be adequate if only one perspective is continuously propagandized.
The “New Cosmos” is a visually magnificent piece of production without a doubt. However this is not 30-years ago where the concepts of Sagen were cutting edge….emphasis on were.
Although thousands of years perceived before Charles Darwin, recent discoveries in science including advanced physics still do not dispute the Genesis account in the Bible regarding in the beginning when God said, “Let there be light”. Physics does validate that light was the essence of all existence at the beginning so at least the Genesis account of the beginning is not scientifically disputed.
New discoveries in physics as Stanford’s Linde solidifying his theory of chaotic inflation, or the Higgs boson breakthrough of last year does not dispute the Bible account. Thermodynamics concurred with scripture which described how the Creation waxes old as a garment . Astronomical declarations in the Bible are not disputed or conflict with discoveries thousands of years after writings in the Bible.
Instead of making self-pontifications as “mindless evolution”, a science program needs to stick to science instead of attempting to correct religious themes with its own conjecture. Offer proof of evolution without checking with other evolutionists. There are many Jewish and Christian scientists that do not believe in evolution….where is their take? Or are those subscribing to evolution going to depend on the diatribe of those as Bill Maher to champion their cause?
“Cosmos” hopefully will avoid the unnecessary shots at religion and present its case based on scientific evidence. If empirical evidence is disclosed that will refute Creation, then present it. Attempting to build a case against religion by using slanted information as claiming the Catholic church killed Giordano Bruno because of the preposterous reason given by “Cosmos” is pure theatrics.
Plus it has nothing to do with science.