American Scientific Affiliation

Astronomy/Cosmology Page

 

 

The Cosmos According to Carl Sagan (1934-1996): 
Review and Critique

MARK G. McKIM

Minister

German Street United Baptist Church
Saint John, New Brunswick
Canada E2L 3W2

From PSCF 45 (March 1993): 18-25

The writings and television appearances of Carl Sagan have done much to popularize the scientific enterprise and to fire the popular imagination. A careful examination, however, shows that Sagan is highly critical of religious frames of reference, especially the Christian one. This article sets forth Sagan's major criticisms and maintains that he is operating from a clear world view, which itself verges on being a religion. A critique of the major points of that world view and a response to the criticisms which Sagan levels towards Christianity are also provided.

Carl Sagan's widespread popularity, which began with the television series Cosmos and the book by the same title, should of itself provide sufficient justification for a serious consideration of the personable Cornell professor's views, which have captured the imaginations of millions. But if additional reasons for such a consideration are needed, one can cite such factors as the continuing popularity of Dr. Sagan's writings and his very considerable influence in shaping the views of many in the English-speaking Western world, not only through the medium of the printed word, but also by means of his frequent television appearances, in productions ranging from news programs to late-night American talk shows. In addition, one would hope that the benefit of historical perspective should attend any consideration of Sagan's views today, seeing that Cosmos (both text and television series) and the acclaim and controversy they created are almost a decade old.

It is widely conceded that Sagan's magnum opus, Cosmos, is critical toward religious frames of reference, especially the Christian one, and this perception is easily confirmed by a cursory reading of the Cosmos text.

In this paper a wide-ranging review and critique of Sagan's writings will be undertaken. I intend to elucidate Sagan's major criticisms of religion in general and Christianity in particular; to determine the major components of the Weltanschauung which stands behind Sagan's criticisms; and to provide a brief running commentary on, or critique of, each of the components of that world view.

This paper will limit itself to four volumes published by Dr. Sagan: Cosmos,1 undoubtedly Sagan's best known work; his popular novel Contact;2 his Pulitzer Prize-winning work The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence3 Broca's Brain: Reflections on The Romance of Science.4 In addition, we will consider two particularly enlightening interviews with Sagan. The first interview was published in U.S. News & World Report5 in December 1980, the second in the U.S. Catholic6 a few months later.

Let us begin with a systematic examination of Sagan's major criticisms of religious frames of reference. These criticisms seem to divide into four parts.

 "Religion is Anti-Intellectual"

The first of these criticisms is that Dr. Sagan believes that religion (at least in its institutional Christian form) is anti-intellectual. It does not make use of the cerebral matter, believing things instead on the basis of tradition, authority and the like. Sagan writes: "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion...but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science."7

This viewpoint becomes, if anything, much more pronounced in Sagan's novel Contact. The protagonist, Ellie, clearly mouths Sagan's own notions about religion. She says:

Around Santa Fe, the faintest glimmerings of dawn might be seen above the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. (Why should a religion, she asked herself, name its places after the blood and body, heart and pancreas of its most revered figure? And why not the brain among other prominent but uncommemorated organs?)8

Later, Ellie says:

Anything you don't understand, Mr. Rankin, you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to your intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it.9

In his comments in the U.S. News & World Report interview, Sagan posited that in - the traditional approach of religion...many assertions are never challenged."10

Richard A. Baer, Jr., adequately summarizes Sagan's position in this way. "Science gives us reliable knowledge, [Sagan] suggests, whereas religion is connected with...narrowness of mind, and bigotry."11

In response to Professor Sagan, one must admit that some Christians have sometimes adopted anti-intellectualist, obscurantist stances. This attitude is still dominant within some forms of Protestant fundamentalism.

But Sagan overplays his hand. Historically, there have been many instances of Christians who were not by any stretch of the imagination anti-intellectualist! Was it not the Christian church which preserved and protected the remains of the ancient world's best writings, established and nurtured some of the greatest universities in Europe and North America, and had among its adherents a number of the giants in the development of modern science?

Additionally, Sagan fails to take any notice whatsoever of the fact that the New Testament records give scant support to obscurantism. The apostle Paul held public debates about his new faith.12 Jesus demanded the active employment of the mind!13 Surely it would have been reasonable for Sagan to note that obscurantism is a deviation from the intentions of primitive Christianity and its founder.

"Religion Opposes Scientific Advancement"

Sagan's second major point of conflict with religion is the accusation that religion, especially in its institutional Christian expression, has tended to oppose the advance of scientific knowledge even to the point of persecuting scientists. Cosmos is replete with numerous examples and comments intended to prove this. With reference to Copernicus, Sagan writes:

Nicolaus Copernicus' proposition that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the universe upset many people including the Catholic Church, which put his work on the index, and Martin Luther, who called Copernicus "an upstart astrologer...this fool14

Of Giordano Bruno, Sagan notes:

Giordano Bruno, a sixteenth century Roman Catholic scholar who held that there are an infinity of worlds and that many are inhabited, was burned at the stake in 1600 for his views.15


Sagan again simplifies history to the point of distortion and omits key points.


 And, with an almost malicious glee, Sagan comments on Kepler:

He (Kepler) lived in a time when the human spirit was fettered and the mind chained; when the ecclesiastical pronouncements of a millennium or two earlier on scientific matters were considered more reliable than contemporary findings made with techniques unavailable to the ancients.16

Once again, Sagan is partly correct, but only partially. There is no question that Christians and the institutional church have sometimes acted in irrational ways toward scientists and their studies. Sagan's examples are certainly not the only ones which could be brought forward as instances of opposition to scientific progress, persecution of scientists, or legal pressures to insure conformity. Some great scientists only avoided becoming additional examples for Sagan's list by hiding their views from public scrutiny. Isaac Newton, for instance, had to conceal his rejection of Trinitarian teaching to keep his university post.

As Bernard Ramm notes,

Some theologians are unsympathetic with, or suspicious of, science, and fail to understand it and while being censorious of the scientist who makes amateurish remarks about theology, they themselves fail to learn a little science before they speak of the scientific issues. They view science as the work of scheming atheists, iconoclasts, or plotting infidels.17

In his discussion of this subject Sagan again simplifies history to the point of distortion and omits key points. As Dr. Clark Pinnock of McMaster University remarks:

Without wishing to deny that institutional religion has often times opposed new ideas in science in the fear that they might upset theological convictions, I think it only fair to state somewhere in the course of a long book that modern science was born on Christian soil and in connection with a Christian understanding of the world. 18

William J. O'Malley notes: "...he (Sagan) makes the scientific community sound universally and immediately tolerant...19 Furthermore, O'Malley notes that Sagan fails to mention that some prominent scientists like Gregor Mendel and Copernicus were clerics!20 Sagan's treatment of the matter gives the historically inadequate impression that there has been a virtually unanimous opposition by Christians to scientists and their researches, the former being the clear villains, the latter the clear heros in the piece.

"Religion is Provincial"

Sagan's third criticism is summarized by his comment:

Fanatical...religious...chauvinisms are a little difficult to maintain when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars.21

In Contact, a similar strain of thought is found.

It is hard to imagine...extraterrestrials taking seriously a plea for preferential parley from representatives of one or another ideological faction.22

What does the size of the universe and earth's physical smallness in that universe have to do with the importance, significance, truth or falseness of views held by humans? Would a universe half or a quarter the size it is make the views held by humans more or less significant? If a view held by any given group is shown to be correct, then the size of the universe has nothing to do with the matter.

"Religion Has Suspect Origins"

Sagan's fourth criticism may be termed his "theory of the origin of religion." The theory bears remarkable likeness to the views expressed by Freud in his The Future of An Illusion.

In Cosmos Sagan writes:

The idea that every organism was meticulously constructed by a Great Designer provided a significance and order to nature, and an importance to human beings that we crave still. A Designer is a natural, appealing...explanation of the biological world. [Italics added.]23

In Contact, this line of thought continues, as illustrated by this conversation between Ellie and the clergyman, Palmer:

Don't you ever feel...lost in your universe....?

You're not worried about being lost, Palmer. You're worried about not being central, not the reason the universe was created...

Your religion assumes that people are children and need a bogeyman so they'll behave. You want people to believe in God so they'll obey the law.24

Religion originates, in Sagan's view, from a combination of wish fulfillment and attempted societal control.


"Your religion assumes that people are children 
and need a bogeyman so they'll behave. You want people to believe 
in God so they'll obey the law."


There is no doubt that for some persons the notion of a god is wish fulfillment. One does sometimes hear Christians comment that God must exist, for if he did not, how could sense be made of life? And by such a comment is intended as nothing more or less than a wish. It is not hard to see how such a wish could be in some cases transformed into a virtual proof of God's existence. And there can also be little doubt that there are historical examples of institutional religion being used as an oppressive means of societal control. For examples, consider 17th century Anglicanism, the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec from 1760 until the "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960s, the early Puritan churches of Massachusetts, or the Roman Catholic Church in Spain under Franco.

But such examples do not of themselves actually demonstrate the origin of the idea of God. As Richard Baer notes:

Throughout Cosmos Sagan presents his speculations about the origin of religion and belief in the gods (or God) as facts, with no discussion of alternative possibilities. He simply assumes that the gods (or God) is a human creation, a primitive attempt to explain natural phenomena that science later helped us to understand correctly.25

Sagan's notions about the origin of the idea of God are not encompassed by detailed historical analysis and reference to ancient texts to demonstrate the point. One is simply presented with Sagan's view, apparently to be taken on faith. This is a most unusual proceeding for one who says:

You must be skeptical; you must ask for verification. If someone claims a thing happens in a certain way, you do the experiment to check it out, to see if, in fact, it works as claimed. You examine the internal coherence of the idea. You test its logical structure. You see how well it agrees with other things which are reliably known, and only then do you start accepting new ideas. This is standard practice in science. I wish it were more widely applied.26>

Furthermore, although in Contact religion is said to - sell human beings short,"27 intellectually and in terms of their abilities, one must consider whether in fact Sagan himself gives insufficient credit to humans. His theory of the origin of religion assumes that human beings want consoling notions about God even if such notions are untrue, and seems to further posit that humans can in large degree find even notions which are known or suspected to be untrue to be consoling!

 Sagan's Religion


If one were to end the consideration of Sagan's views at this point, the impression would be that, while more than a little irritated by conventional expressions of religious belief (notably Christian), Dr. Sagan is, however, only taking random "potshots." Actually, while the four major criticisms outlined above do indeed have the character of isolated volleys, Sagan is operating with a discernable world view which in fact has features remarkably similar to a religion. It is important, then, to set forth the major components of this "religion."

In considering the existence of a virtual religion (or at the very least the existence of a clear world view), it seems appropriate to be guided by the use of the traditional theological terminology and categories, chiefly because they seem to apply so well!

Sagan's Ultimate Concern

Every world view has some concept of what Paul Tillich called "ultimate concern." Sagan rejects the usual religious "ultimate concern" (God), saying:

To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.28

Sagan's belief is that the evidence for the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, is insufficient, as evidenced from Contact:

...if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. And he hardly had to confine himself to writings. Why isn't there a monster crucifix orbiting the Earth? Why isn't the surface of the Moon covered with the Ten Commandments? Why should God be so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?29

In Cosmos, Sagan goes even further and turns the universe into his "ultimate concern."

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decided this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed.30

And, in a statement which echoes the prologue to John's gospel, Dr. Sagan claims, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."31

Richard A. Baer, Jr., summarizes like this: "Sagan presents much more than science...He also shares his religious testimony, his witness to a strange and beautiful cosmos that for him is the ultimate reality."32


In a statement which echoes the prologue to John's gospel, 
Dr. Sagan claims, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, 
or ever will be."


A Christian response to Dr. Sagan, of course, must reject his "ultimate concern" as not being identifiable with God. But additionally, one can wonder about Sagan's apparent failure to deal with certain historical issues. While Sagan paints his reasons for rejecting a traditional "ultimate concern" (i.e. God) on an immense canvas- the whole universe- he apparently does not deal with the more mundane history of humankind, which might furnish the evidence he says is lacking. Indeed, Dr. Sagan is convinced that the universe is a closed system, so to speak, that in point of fact "...we live in [a]...universe, where things change...according to patterns, rules, or as we call them, laws of nature"33 This being the case, it is not surprising to be informed that:

The gods don't drop in on us to fix things up when we've botched it. You look at human history and it's clear we've been on our own.34

Sagan fails to address the fact that the Christian assertion is precisely that God did intervene dramatically, clearly, and bodily, in human history, and that its primary contention is that we have not - been on our own."35

Sagan's Anthropology

Sagan's world view is also replete with an anthropology which defines the human in these terms:

I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan. You are a collection of almost identical molecules with a different collective label. But is that all? Is there nothing in here but molecules? Some people find this idea...demeaning to human dignity. For myself, I find it elevating that our universe permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we are.36

Sagan provides this definition of "human" in an utterly materialist and reductionist fashion, and puts it forward for acceptance without any serious consideration of other definitions, and without suggesting any reasons for accepting the posited definition.

But there is considerably more to Sagan's anthropology than this definition of a human. The question of what constitutes the essence of a human being has a long history of discussion among theologians, philosophers, ethicists, and, more recently, with the advances in medical technology, among politicians and even average citizens.

Sagan in one deft stroke defines from his perspective what constitutes our humanity. He writes: "The cortex regulates our conscious lives. It is the distinction of our species, the seat of our humanity."37 In The Dragons of Eden, Sagan says something quite similar: "This essential human quality, I believe, can only be our intelligence. If so, the particular sanctity of human life can be identified with the development and functioning of the neo-cortex." 38 In The Dragons of Eden, Sagan takes this view, found in brief form also in Cosmos, to its logical extreme. Regarding the abortion issue, he writes:

The key practical question is to determine when a fetus becomes human. This in turn rests on what we mean by human...The reason we prohibit the killing of human beings must be because of some quality human beings possess, a quality we especially prize, that few or no other organisms on earth enjoy...This essential human quality, I believe, can only be our intelligence. If so, the particular sanctity of human life can be identified with the development and functioning of the neo-cortex...We might set the transition to humanity at the time when neo-cortical activity begins . . .39


The reader is faced with a view which is reductionist in the extreme: 
humanity is reduced to a biological/chemical level.


At first glance, Sagan's opinion is exceedingly attractive. It apparently would put a swift and decisive end to agonizing over when life exists- and when it does not.

Several points, however, should be made. To begin with, the reader is once again faced with a view which is reductionist in the extreme. Humanity is reduced to a biological/chemical level. In addition, Sagan does not offer further support for his position. Finally, it should be made clear at this point that a theology developed with a traditional respect for the Scriptures must reject Sagan's view outright.

It is true that traditional Roman Catholic theology has often posited that the essence of the human being (i.e., that which makes a being human) is the reasoning capacity. It is also true that such a view is not unknown in Protestant circles. It is to be noted, however, that Roman Catholic thought seems to be moving away from such a position,40 and that a strong case can be made that the true essence of humanity is not a matter of intellect.

The whole thrust of the biblical witness seems instead to be that the Imago Dei consists to a large degree in the human potential to have a unique relationship with the Creator, a relationship which is personal, constituted by an offering by God of love, and human acceptance and reciprocation of that love, and a relationship in which the human finds true humanity and ultimate freedom in complete dependence upon God. This view is very well articulated by Emil Brunner, who wrote:

True humanity does not spring from the full development of human potentialities, but it arises through the reception, the perception, and the acceptance of the love of God, and it develops and is preserved by "abiding" in communion with the God who reveals himself in Love.41

While it is true that the image was marred at the Fall, it cannot be said to have been lost, or else Scripture would be in error in continuing to refer to humans as human. Thus, the biblical thrust is that the image of God consists of the potential to have a unique relationship with God and the realization of that relationship. But though humanity lost the relationship, and in a sense "full" or "true" humanity at the Fall, the potential for the relationship, and the claim to still be human, remains. This potential must be said to exist in all the offspring resulting from human mating, no matter how limited intellectually, physically, or otherwise such offspring may be.

Sagan's Ethic and Soteriology

As world views normally contain some notions about right and wrong behavior, variously termed "ethics," "morality," and so forth, it is not surprising to find such an element in Sagan's world view. Sagan's ethic centers on one "commandment" which appears several times in Cosmos. Sagan writes, "Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves but also to the Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring." [Emphasis added.]42 As Norman L. Geisler summarizes:

So the Cosmos has created man in its own image, endowed him with life, and sustains his very existence. For all of this man has a moral obligation to perpetuate life in the Cosmos.43

This ethical imperative to survive is so closely tied to Sagan's soteriology that the two should be placed together for purposes of commentary.

Throughout Cosmos, but particularly in its last chapter, Sagan argues that the great threat facing humankind is its own self-destruction, most likely through nuclear warfare, and that it is from such a threat that mankind needs "salvation."44

And how is such "salvation" to be accomplished? Dr. Sagan describes the human dilemma and his rather unique solution:

There are some who look on our global problems here on earth- at our vast national antagonisms, our nuclear arsenals, our growing populations, the disparity between the poor and the affluent, shortages of food and resources, and our inadvertent alterations of the natural environment- and conclude that we live in a system that has suddenly become unstable, a system that is destined soon to collapse. There are others who believe that our problems are soluble, that humanity is still in its childhood, that one day soon we will grow up. The receipt of a single message from space would show that it is possible to live through a technological adolescence; the transmitting civilization, after all, has survived. Such knowledge, it seems to me, might be worth a great price....45

But, in case there is no response from space, Sagan notes:

And what if we make a long-term dedicated search for extraterrestrial intelligence and fail? Even then we surely will not have wasted our time...For if intelligent life is scarce or absent elsewhere, we will have learned something significant about the rarity and value of our culture and our biological patrimony . . .46

Given Sagan's "ultimate concern" and anthropology, his soteriology and ethic do make some sense. But what if humans are more than Sagan defines them as, and what if his "ultimate concern" is incorrect? Neither assumption was adequately defended by Sagan, leaving the ethic and soteriology presented by him resting on shaky ground.

Sagan's Worship

The last major element in Sagan's world view can be termed the component of worship, the experience of the numinous. Sagan speaks of this when he says:

It is very hard to look at the beauty, intricacy, and subtlety of nature without feeling awe. I don't think even the word reverence is too strong.47

But experiences of the numinous are limited indeed.

She asked Eda if he had ever had a transforming religious experience. "Yes," he said.

"When?" Sometimes you had to encourage him to talk. 

"When I first picked up Euclid. Also when I first understood Newtonian gravitation. And Maxwell's equations, and general relativity. And during my work on superunification. I have been fortunate enough to have had many religious experiences."

"No," she returned. "You know what I mean. Apart from science."

"Never," he replied instantly.48

This all leads to the conclusion that:

If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars? Hidden within every astronomical investigation, sometimes so deeply buried that the researcher himself is unaware of its presence, lies a kernel of awe.49

A comment by Dr. Clark Pinnock provides a pointed rejoinder:

...[W]hy would anyone celebrate nature if in fact it is the product of blind chance and part of a pointless process? Sagan appears to think that people ought to imitate his own loyalty to evolution and reverence for life. But why should they do such an irrational thing? Surely a more sensible response to the cosmos as Sagan presents it would be to adopt a nihilistic outlook and try to derive as much pleasure from life as possible before it is snuffed out.50

An Appropriate Response to Sagan: A Mission of the Church

Sagan's works are replete with criticisms of Christians and institutional Christianity. These criticisms are not entirely invalid, but they frequently paint only a partial and therefore distorted picture, and rarely, if ever, distinguish between the intentions of Christianity's founder and the way things have sometimes been worked out in a manner not in accord with those intentions. This is akin to arguing that the scientific method is invalidated, because some scientists have used its premises to develop terrifying weapons of mass destruction! But in addition, Sagan is operating with, and promoting the acceptance of, a discernable world view, which is in large part opposed to the Christian world view. In fact, as Baer says:

Throughout Cosmos Sagan goes far beyond the traditional descriptive and interpretive role of science. His presentation involves a host of metaphysical and value statements that are not a part of science as ordinarily understood and practiced...He transforms a very fruitful method for understanding the world into an all embracing metaphysic or world view.51

Much of Sagan's writing propagates his particular world view and attacks other views as much as it popularizes science. Because of this fact, the church needs to make a clear and adequate answer to Sagan. This reply should consist of a careful analysis and a response which meets Sagan's position on the grounds of scientific history, and provides clear, adequately supported philosophic positions. Since Sagan's views are so well known, and since they are not ill-representative of a philosophy which pervades much of contemporary Western society, a response to Sagan constitutes an important part of the mission of the church.

1993

 NOTES

1 Carl Sagan, Cosmos, (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985).

2 Carl Sagan, Contact, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985).

3 Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence, (New York: Random House, 1977).

4 Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain: Reflections On The Romance Of Science, (New York: Random House, 1979).

5 Carl Sagan, "A Conversation with Carl Sagan - Science and Religion 'Similar Objective, Different Methods,'" interview by Alvin P. Sanopp, U.S. News & World Report (December 1, 1980), 62, 63.

6 Carl Sagan, "God and Carl Sagan: Is The Cosmos Big Enough for Both of Them? Edward Wakin interviews Carl Sagan," interview by Edward Wakin, U.S. Catholic, No. 5 (May 1981), 19-24.

7 Cosmos, 74.

8 Contact, 61.

9 Ibid., 172

10 U.S. News & World Report, 62.

11 Richard A. Baer, Jr., "Cosmos, Cosmologies and the Public Schools," This World, No. 5 (Spring/Summer 1983), 7.

12 For examples, see Acts 17: 16-34, 19: 8-10.

13 For examples, see Matthew 22:37 and parallel passages Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27.

14 Cosmos, 39-41.

15 Ibid., 70.

16 Ibid., 41.

17 Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, rpt., (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 36.

18 Clark Pinnock, "Sagan's Humanist Metaphysic: Fantasy, Not Fact," Christianity Today, (November 6, 1981), 98.

19 William J. O'Malley, "Carl Sagan's Gospel of Scientism," America, (February 7, 1981), 96.

 20 Ibid.

21 Cosmos, 264.

22 Contact, 265.

 23 Cosmos, 18.

 24 Contact, 254.

 25 Baer," Cosmos, "Cosmologies and the Public Schools," 8.

26 U.S. Catholic, 24.

27 Contact, 254.

28 U.S. Catholic, 20.

29 Contact, 170.

30 Cosmos, 212.

31 Ibid., 1.

32 Baer, "Cosmos, "Cosmologies and the Public Schools," 6.

33 Cosmos, 32. Sagan here seems to be using the model of the Newtonian universe, which is somewhat too rigid, and should be modified according to the theories of Einstein. Nevertheless, since Sagan apparently is dealing with this model, this is the model to which we will respond. For a more popular exposition of the notion of randomness in the universe, particularly on the micro level, consult A.R. Peacocke's Creation and The World of Science.

34 Contact, 287.

35 Ibid.

36 Cosmos, 105.

37 Cosmos, 229.

38 The Dragons of Eden, 197.

 39 The Dragons of Eden, 196, 197.

40 The reader is referred to the document Gaudim et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church In The Modern World) promulgated on December 7, 1965, by the Second Vatican Council, especially Chapter I, sections 12 - 17.

41 Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, Vol. II of Dogmatics, trans, Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, n.d.), 59.

42 Cosmos, 286.

43 Norman L. Geisler, Cosmos: Carl Sagan's Religion for the Scientific Mind (Dallas: Quest Publication, 1983), 31.

44 Cosmos, especially the last chapter, "Who Speaks for Earth?"

45 Broca's Brain: Reflections On The Romance Of Science, 275.

46 Ibid., 277.

47 U.S. Catholic, 19.

48 Contact, 315.

 49 Cosmos, 199.

50 Pinnock, 99.

51 Baer, Cosmos, Cosmologies, and the Public Schools," 6.