I remember watching Contact back in 1997 when it first came out. It was, to me, one of the most mind-bendingly scientifically accurate movies I’d ever seen. Rewatching it sometime last year, as well as reading the book (which is also amazing), kind of got me to thinking about Carl Sagan. I’d heard of him, but he died in 1996, just before the movie came out, so wasn’t really part of anything big in my life. I had also a vague recollection of the Cosmos book sitting on my parent’s bookshelf, but I discovered about a month ago that the complete TV show Cosmos was available for streaming on Netflix I decided I would watch it.
I genuinely think had I watched this entire thing at some point before I got to college, I may very well have changed my focus from philosophy and theology to astronomy and science. I’ve always enjoyed science and maybe, if I had a better calculus teacher in high school, I would have pursued it as a possibility more vigorously. Sagan’s ability to explain the complex in simple, easily understood terms is amazing and very eye opening. When he got to his description of evolution I recalled it from somewhere in the back of my mind as one of the clearest explanations of it, one that had helped me more fully understand the principle sometime in my past.
I actually learned very little in terms of science from watching the entire show itself. I recalled enough from my old days in high school reading such books that the information discussed wasn’t all that new or exciting. I learned more about the history of science than I did about science itself. The real joy of watching this was watching Sagan, a man consummately good at teaching about science, with great one liners such as “to make apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” Sagan’s ability to demonstrate how we are merely on part of a journey from ignorance to further knowledge spoke very clearly to me. I think in some ways my choosing philosophy and theology were part of the same drive for understand and knowledge that he has. Two sides of the same coin, in many ways—also a reason I liked Contact and how it handled similar themes. It’s also why I dislike Richard Dawkins and the current crop of atheist authors. Their unwillingness to consider other points of view and see those who are believers as fellow citizens on a journey of understanding is arrogant to me. It’s why BYU invited Neil Degrasse Tyson to give a forum lecture, even though he’s an atheist, because Tyson isn’t a jerk about his beliefs.
Sagan actually is a scholar and a gentleman, and his approach to science and knowledge is one of deep awe and child-like wonder. I’ve genuinely only felt that way a few times in my life, and it was usually when pondering the mysteries of the universe—whether from science or religion. I would highly recommend this series to anybody who is interested in science and astronomy, even though it’s long, I gained an appreciation for all those who have tried to understand the universe, scientists, humans, and fellow-travelers through life whose achievements allow me to blog about this show, which I watched at home in a heated apartment, streamed from the internet through a Blu-Ray player, on a TV. To give you some idea of how simply eye-opening this show can be, I submit to you the following videos, one that someone made as a “commercial” for NASA a few months ago that got some attention on the internet, and one of the better versions from youtube (and there are many) of Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot” speech.
Final Score: 99/100. I remember thinking he got a little preachy about all religion once, but that was momentary, and that was the only complaint I had in the entire 13 hour series.
0 comments:
Post a Comment