I’m sorry to say that I still haven’t seen “Cosmos,” as I’m up to my eyeballs in writing and reading for that writing, even in the evenings. All reports are that the first two episodes (the third, I guess, is tonight) were good, with a few quibbles from scientists about inaccuracies. The evolution show got good reviews, I’m glad to say, but creationists are, as expected, kvetching. In fact, according to the International Business Times, they want some time on the show.  Or at least Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham’s organization) does:

During an interview with Right Wing Watch, Danny Faulkner, a creationist and astronomy professor from the Christian non-profit organization Answers in Genesis, said the show is biased against creationist scientists and that there are plenty of scientists who consider creationism a valid theory for how Earth came to be.

“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all,” Faulkner told Right Wing Watch’s Janet Mefferd in response to her asking if “Cosmos” producers “ever give creationists some time.”

You can hear Faulkner on the Janet Meffert show here. (Note: I didn’t have the heart to listen to it, as my sentiments are expressed in the photo below):

The reason, of course, that scientists don’t consider creationism (and that includes Intelligent Design) implausible is because it is implausible. There’s no evidence for it, and so it doesn’t belong on a science show. Of course the issue of “bias” is raised, but it’s not “bias” to oppose creationism, any more than it’s “bias” to oppose homeopathy.  I’m wondering why the Discovery Institute isn’t complaining as well, for they consider ID to be straight science, and so should have even more grounds for complaint. My prediction is that they’ll remain silent about “Cosmos,” but it’s not a prediction I’m terribly confident about.

To his credit, host Neil deGrasse Tyson has said some pretty strong things against “dogma,” which in his case borders on pretty strong implicit criticism of religion. In an interview at Mother Jones magazine, for instance, he says this:

The stance of Cosmos, Tyson emphasizes, is not anti-religion but anti-dogma: “Any time you have a doctrine where that is the truth that you assert, and that what you call the truth is unassailable, you’ve got doctrine, you’ve got dogma on your hands. And so Cosmos is…an offering of science, and a reminder that dogma does not advance science; it actually regresses it.”

Note, though, that he claims he’s not anti-religion, but what is religion but dogma? Tyson also characterizes the Bruno affair as not really pitting science and religion because “Bruno himself was deeply religious person.” But that’s a bit disingenuous, for Bruno was burned for holding views heretical to the dominant religious powers, even though his heresy involved more than science.

But never mind. Although Tyson coddles religion a bit too much for my liking, the show doesn’t seem to do that at all—not from what I’ve heard.

In the meantime, there are a few parody videos: Tyson remixed for the creationist mind. Here are two called to my attention by reader Gregory. They’re labelled “Cosmos edited for Rednecks/Fox News,” but I’m not wild about the “redneck” monicker: many creationists don’t conform to the “redneck” stereotype at all, and in fact the term is a bit bigoted. But these mashups are still funny:

Part I

Part II