Assimov's new guide to science - still worth reading?

Ten years ago (or so) I read Assimov’s new guide to science.

I was young then and it was all fantastic. However, I’m re-reading it and I know that a lot of the perceptions of the universe and biology have changed since it was written (20 years ago?)… I’ll still finish it since the historical data won’t change but the ‘latest’ stuff sure seems old. Should I still recommend this book for newbie science folk?
What would be a good contemporary replacement?

Well, I still have a twenty year old set of the old two volume Pelican UK edition of the Asimov’s Guide to Science version kicking around - the one with opposite halves of the Good Doctor’s face on the covers. I’ve no idea when I last looked at the physical sciences one, but I still find the biology one a useful reference from time to time. For those moments when I can’t remember what the pancreas does and the like.
My impression from memory is that he showed good judgement in only including stuff that has actually since stood the test of 30 further years of research. Checking a couple of topics, for example, he devotes a page to explaining quarks, describing the idea as “speculative”. Which was fair enough in 1972, though anybody writing the same chapter now would surely cut much of the messier details about the hadrons to talk about the more fundamental quarks at greater length. But that messier detail is still accurate.
Similarly, he doesn’t quite regard the big bang vs. steady state debate as over, but he clearly thinks the former is ahead.

Sufficiently much has happened that I’d be hesitant about suggesting it as the only book someone read on science. But someone reading it with an awareness that it’s old won’t be mislead and will pick up a lot of cool stuff.
As for contemporary equivalents, I don’t know. John Gribben seems to be churning out various general surveys at this level, but I haven’t read any of his recent stuff.

You obviously can’t use them for cutting edge science. But they provide the basics in many fields, the stuff that’s usually passed over quickly in the first chapter of books on a particular discovery. Much of what we need to know is basic science and nobody has ever been better than Asimov at making basic science understandable.