Play Book Tag discussion

What wonderful writing. I would say, the parts that I read, this is the best written science book I have ever started. I've wanted to read this for years to see how it compared to other mainstream science books.

I decided to quit after Sagan making the statement that evolution is not a theory but a fact and indirectly scoffing that those that believe in creation. I've read many science books, even those that promote evolution but I have not interest feeling attacked when I read a book. I am very disappointed because I have a feeling this is a great book.

I have no idea if this is helpful - but i once heard a talk explaining how evolution and the story of creation go hand in hand. At least biblically... I found that really interesting. You and I have talked about this before, but I absolutely think there is room for science and religion and belief to go hand in glove. Like its amazing that rituals that were divined and come up with thousands of years ago, end up being proved by science years later. I find that incredible and a touch of the divine. I wonder if there are such discussions or room for that in other faiths?

One thing I learned from that evolution/creation talk, is that when it is spoken about, about God creating the earth in 6 days, each of those days are a thousand years, which matches up with, or eras, which match up with the evolutionary path. The other thing that struck me and stayed with me, is how all scientists say earth began with the Big Bang. But no one has been able to tell us - how did the Big Bang start? Who Started That?

Jason I admire deeply your principles and how you strive to read and learn, but also think critically about what information and energy you want to take in and honor. You have been clear and thoughtful in creating those boundaries while still opening yourself up to new ideas and experiences that fit. I think that is a hard line sometimes and you do it extremely well. I also think your point of view is valuable and I always really enjoy hearing it, in any form.

Amy wrote: "I have no idea if this is helpful - but i once heard a talk explaining how evolution and the story of creation go hand in hand. At least biblically... I found that really interesting. You and I hav..."

As we have talked before, I am not a creationist. From what I understand, a creationist is someone who believes in 6 literal days of creation. That I don't believe in nor do I say it was 6000 years. The scripture that this refers to might not be literal, 1000 years is as 1 day to God. It could just be some frame of reference to understand time is not the same for God. He created time so he is not bound by it. Day means nothing to God. So it could have been millions of years between creative days.

That said, I do not believe in evolution, changing from one species to another. Chimp to Human. Fish to walking on land. I do believe in adaptation to surroundings.

Also, yes, no matter how far back you go with evolution, there is still a "how did that start" Evolution, the big bang, does not explain a beginning. I like what Stephen Hawking says. If we look back to the beginning of the universe and we see the universe is self sustainable, then there is no reason to believe in God. If we see the universe was created and had a beginning, God is the only answer. (Not an exact quote, paraphrasing his idea)

I do believe science is religion can coexist and one can help the other. There is much science explained in the bible (water cycle, earth hanging upon nothing, earth being a globe) that was not "discovered" until centuries later.

What I didn't like about Carl Sagan, was telling me beyond a doubt, evolution is the only answer and denying evolution is sticking your head in the sand. The statement, almost verbatim, Evolution is not a theory. It is fact. At that point, I was not interested in reading anything else in the book. Neil Degrasse Tyson, though he believes in evolution and even states in his book he things religious people are wrong, I did not feel attacked and enjoyed his book very much.

I think Sagan is an older day Richard Dawkins (just much more charming).

On a different angle - Have you read ‘ready player one’?
I enjoyed it a lot and was going to recommend to my friend (who happened to be religious) but there’s a whole chapter dissing religions quite rudely. It was so disconnected from the rest of the story - just a bee in the author’s bonnet that he had to share. But there it was. I just couldn’t recommend it to my friend anymore. I didn’t want her to be insulted by what was a light fun read. (And she is not easily insulted but it was unnecessary to the story in any way)


Sometime atheist or religious point of view is needed for the telling of the story. Sometime it’s the whole point. But sometime you just wish they’d get on with the story and leave preaching to the church or YouTube

Idit wrote: "I think Sagan is an older day Richard Dawkins (just much more charming).

On a different angle - Have you read ‘ready player one’?
I enjoyed it a lot and was going to recommend to my friend (who ha..."

I agree, that atheist or religious point of view is needed for the telling of the story. An example is Origin by Dan Brown. There is a difference to it being necessary to the story and a narration thrown in like you described in Ready Player One.

The Silo series I'm reading now has some religious themes, both positive and negative, but yet they do not take away from the story neither do I feel patted on the back or insulted. I think this is where Sagan crossed the line for me. Its not that I think he is wrong. I expected to read about evolution in Cosmos. I felt it unnecessary and personal.

For what’s it worth - I think it was personal for him. From my vague memories of Candle In The Dark - he feels like a last defender of science against a lot of different things

Idit. I understand that and respect that. At the same time, thats my line. His writing was wonderful and i love his devotion to science and learning. And the voyager program.

This is very similar to the way I felt while reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. I got through 3 or 4 chapters, highlighting a great deal. I didn't disagree with what he was saying in any substantial way. I was finding much of it very interesting. But,I had a strong reaction to how he said it. He was dismissive of any alternative viewpoint and always seemed to find a denigrating way to make his point (i. e. calling the Pope the Catholic alpha male in a way insinuated a comparison to chimps or dogs ) I DNF.

Jason I totally understand

Jgrace, only other book ive felt this way about was From Bacteria to Bach which I DNF.