ICR Finally Reacts to the “Cosmos” Series

The new series Cosmos: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, has run its course, but it keeps providing us with entertainment.

We’ve previously posted about several agonized reactions from the Discoveroids and from ol’ Hambo’s Answers in Genesis, but until today, we hadn’t heard from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their long-awaited criticism is presented in this new article, Cosmos: A Series Created to Counter Creation.

It’s written by Brian Thomas,, described at the end as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research” — which presumably means he’s an anti-science writer. Here’s what he says, with bold font added by us:

“The universe is all that is, or was, or ever will be.” Does this statement raise any red flags?

Red flag — meaning warning signal? No, Sagan’s statement doesn’t do that for us. But it does for the creation scientists at ICR. Here’s what they make of it:

It was the opening line of the popular 1980 TV series Cosmos and was repeated in its current incarnation. The statement crystallizes the philosophy of the late Carl Sagan, one of the 20th century’s best communicators of science and naturalism. It imagines a reality that excludes God, essentially replacing Genesis 1’s “In the beginning God” with “In the beginning…hydrogen.” Matter pops into existence without a cause? Now that’s a red flag.

Creationists must see red flags everywhere. For people like that, this is a perilous world indeed. Let’s read on:

The current Cosmos series raises so many such flags — mingling some good science with historical falsehoods, scientific errors, oversimplifications, and logical lapses — that one article cannot manage them. Its makers’ beliefs reveal a common source for all these problems.

What belief is the common source? We suspect that we already know, but we’ll let Thomas tell it his way. He continues:

Consider Cosmos’ award-winning producer, Seth MacFarlane, a brilliant artist, outspoken atheist, and creator of debauched cartoon shows like Family Guy. [The] Los Angeles Times asked him, “What are you hoping to get out of [Cosmos]?” MacFarlane replied, “We’ve had a resurgence of creationism and intelligent design quote-unquote theory. There’s been a real vacuum when it comes to science education.” In Cosmos, he applied his creative skills in an attempt to eradicate creation thinking from popular thought.

Egad — the man who produced Cosmos is a sicko who produced debauched cartoon shows! Here’s more:

How about Cosmos writer Ann Druyan? In 2004 she won the Richard Dawkins Award, granted by Atheist Alliance International for raising public consciousness of atheism.

Aaaargh!! She’s an atheist! Moving along:

Druyan told the Skeptical Inquirer:

[ICR’s purported quote:] I think the roots of this antagonism to science run very deep. They’re ancient. We see them in Genesis, this first story, this founding myth of ours, in which the first humans are doomed and cursed eternally for asking a question, for partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

Here’s ICR’s righteous critique of that:

Only tortured atheistic reasoning could twist the Genesis account into a tale of mankind being unfairly cursed for simple curiosity, a trait God graciously gave us, instead of being cursed for disobeying and distrusting Him. Why else would Druyan render the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” as merely “the Tree of Knowledge,” as though God desires His children be ignorant of everything, instead of just ignorant of experiencing evil?

M’god — Druyan lied about the Tree! What an unspeakably evil woman! Then they go after Tyson:

But surely Cosmos host Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, a scientist, is more objective than his cohorts? Though careful to not disclose his personal beliefs, Tyson has let slip statements that reveal his God-omitting way of thinking. How could this trio not bring their atheistic religious beliefs into the series?

Tyson can’t fool the good folks at ICR. Skipping a bit, we come to the end:

The purpose of Cosmos is not to explore God’s wondrous cosmos with objective science but to more convincingly retell the tattered evolutionary story. Viewers beware: Cosmos was created to counter creation.

If only we had seen this warning before we watched the series. Why did ICR wait so long? It’s too late now, the damage is done.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “ICR Finally Reacts to the “Cosmos” Series

  1. Not being able to get Cosmos over here (hopefully the BBC will get it one day), I can’t comment on the show itself. However, “In the beginning there was hydrogen” is a cracking way to start off the Bible.

  2. If Cosmos was indeed “created to counter creation”, then so was every scientific journal article ever published that omitted supernatural creation from its hypotheses.

    These cretinists really are too funny for words.

  3. Dear Great Hand of HTML,

    I abjectly beg thine indulgence to repair what this weak-minded mortal hath bollixed up.


    [*Voice from above*] Because your heart is pure, your wish was granted before you posted it.

  4. Thenk yoo, thenk yoo, Your Handiness! And it was not lost on the faithful that the Great Hand of HTML in the Sky was faster than the Critical Eye of Beadiness.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    So this is your basic attacking of THE AGENDA of the presenters, because refuting what they said would be hard/impossible.

  6. “In the beginning there was hydrogen… “

    Whoa, there, heretic! That should be ” In the beginning there was the false vacuum.” We don’t get atomic hydrogen until 300,000 years later.

  7. “The current Cosmos series raises so many such flags—mingling some good science with historical falsehoods, scientific errors, oversimplifications, and logical lapses”.

    I look forward to the detailed debunking of Cosmos through a systematic and well thought out, point by point correction of the alleged errors. Sadly the universe will have long gone cold before the I.C.R. can find anything academic to offer. You’ll just have to take their word for it. 😉

  8. Fundamentalists don’t like Cosmos because it lays out a “God-omitting” way of thought? Well, they omit plenty themselves.

    Consider Brian Thomas’s outraged response to Ann Druyan’s reference to the “Tree of Knowledge.” Technically, he’s right: the Bible does refer to it as the tree of “knowledge of good and evil.” But what’s the first thing that happens when Adam and Eve eat from that tree? Genesis 3:7: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

    In other words, being naked was evil, but so was knowing enough to cover up.

    “Evil” seems to be a remarkably broad-gauged concept for these people. Apparently the only way for humans to avoid it would have been by remaining simple animals. If creationists want future generations to live that way, they’re welcome to do so (perhaps by not teaching their kids to talk or understand human speech); just don’t ask me to do the same.

  9. He butchered the quote. It’s “The COSMOS is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

    I guess that technically does make it a red flag, though: If you can’t get a quote correct that contains the TITLE OF THE SHOW that primes me to expect lots of ignorance to follow.

  10. “Matter pops into existence without a cause?”
    Psssst, dear Science Writer at ICR – positrons pop into existence without a cause all the time indeed.

  11. Talk about cherry-picking verses: “as though God desires His children be ignorant of everything, instead of just ignorant of experiencing evil?
    It’s the tree of GOOD and evil, genius!

    So, Adam and Eve were also ignorant of experiencing good?

  12. Eve was conned by an intelligent talking serpent, which was definitely not one of the beasts made by God and named by Adam. It was something else, another god or angel or demon or rival intelligent designer, taking on the appearance of a serpent. However, rather than going after the mysterious entity, God condemns his own personally created snakes – innocent creatures in this affair – to eternal tribulations.

    Of course he also condemns humans forever and, per AIG, the entire universe. Whatever the snake-like trickster was, he scored big. He’s probably still laughing.