Responding to Carl Sagan's Cosmos

Cosmos
Series 2 of 13
"One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue"

Tuesday night we settled in to watch the show “Cosmos” on the Science Channel. What I witnessed was godlessness cloaked in science and decorated with scholarship. To his credit, Sagan was as clever as he was misguided, his chance at wisdom being clouded by all that knowledge and now lost to the sting of death. (Sagan died in 1996) Listening to this gentle soft spoken man, without actually hearing what he is saying, one might find Carl Sagan quite appealing. However, when you imagine the millions of people he and his companions are deceiving with their 40 minutes of manipulations, half truths, false assumptions and even outright lies you want to cry out to God for justice. This article is intended to cast down these claims made by Sagan and his supporters against the knowledge of God.
(2 Cor. 10: 4,5)

Philosophy not Science:

I know many will say the show "Cosmos" is about science, not religion. Well, I enjoy studying and teaching real observable science, but this was pure secular philosophy, or better yet religious propaganda, hiding behind poor science. Evangelical Christians are often accused of ignoring scientific fact and blindly following scripture. We have only ourselves to blame, having to often closed our eyes to these attacks from our culture. On the other hand, many liberal Christians have chosen to put man's beliefs above God's Word and end up left with no logical basis for their faith. Believing they can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, unwittingly make them all worthless. If you say I don't have to believe Genesis 1, on what basis can you then say I must believe John 3? As a whole Christians have been more concerned about what they felt comfortable believing about God’s Word rather than educating themselves as to why they could, should and must believe it all.

Philosophical Religious Propaganda:

Yes, I said philosophical religious propaganda; Sagan’s Cosmos has far more to do with religious philosophy than it does with real science, he said so himself. The shows stated premise is “The search for who we are” This is a purely philosophical or religious question which can never be answered by science. Science looks at how we are made not "who we are or why we were made", that question cannot be answered through science. As you will see, Sagan uses words, phrases, and concepts throughout the show to mislead his viewers. He's doing what we have come to expect from politicians, cleverly disguises his real agenda knowing that, if he were honest concerning his motives, the real message would cause controversy and negatively effect the purpose of his presentation. Sagan and his supporters are interested in converts not controversy.

What is Sagan’s message? - There is no God.

What is his motive? - Convince others there is no God.

"Cosmos" is a witnessing tool used to sway its viewers toward a philosophical religious belief in materialism (all things come only from matter). To see what Sagan believed one need only look at what his widow Ann Druyan (co-writer of “The Cosmos”) said in her NNDB online profile concerning his death; After he (Sagan) died people came up..."and asked me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl." Quote Ann Druyer http://www.nndb.com/people/291/000026213/

Of course they have every right to believe whatever they choose, but do they have a right to government assistance for spreading those beliefs? “The Cosmos”, has been shown in public schools, public libraries, and college classes where the alternative view (mainly Christianity) would often not be allowed. It is a myth to believe we took religion out of public school. We just replaced Christianity with the religions of materialism, secular humanism and atheism. (An people question my decision to home-school my children!) Just take a look at those who received thanks in the credits for this religious propaganda: U.S. Dept of Interior, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, NASA, Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Wright Center for Science Education, Cornell University and others. The oft stated view of science educators is that we must keep science and religion separate. However, those in the field of historical science (science of the origins of man and the universe) consistently mix their religious views with science. You will often hear them waxing poetic about the affect their finding life in space will be on the human race. At times the scientists even accept cooperation from those on the “religious” side. This might seem desirable (a dialogue between science and religion that is) until you realize the critical review is always focused on the Bible and never the science. Just look at this amazing statement describing the purpose for the IRAS. (Institute on Religion in an Age of Science)

“Founded in 1954, IRAS is an independent society of natural scientists, social scientists, philosophers, religion scholars, theologians, and others who seek to understand and reformulate the theory and practice of religion in the light of contemporary scientific knowledge..." www.zygonjournal.org/who.html Notice the words, “reformulate the theory” used not in reference to the science but the "practice of religion". I can just let those words speak for themselves.

Not Even Good Science:

Putting the religious aspect aside, "Cosmos" is weak on real science itself. There are amazing assumptions and huge leaps of logic which should drive any real scientist crazy. Cosmos contains some statements that simply cannot be described as anything other than outright lies. Below are just a few of the false assumptions, misleading claims, and outright lies made by this second show in the series, "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue".

The Samurai Story:

Sagan opens with a legend concerning ancient Samurai who where overtaken by rival tribes in the Japanese sea. Later, when local fisherman would catch crabs that had shells with marks resembling a human (Samurai) face they would throw them back. Over time there were more and more of these crabs with this particular facial marking. The crabs without these facial marks were eaten while the others were thrown back (artificially selected) and survived to have offspring and hereditarily pass down this particular feature. Sagan uses this legend to introduce artificial selection, where certain traits are artificially selected for and some against. This is the equivalent of a country allowing only blond men and women to have children, eventually you are going to get a country full of blond people. This has nothing to do with evolution mind you, it is simply genetics. Artificial selection is introduce this way with the hope we will accept the soon to come ridiculous leap in logic as indisputable fact.

An Illogical Leap of Faith:

Sagan now speaks of artificial selection as demonstrated through man's selective breeding of horses, cattle and other animals. We all know controlled breeding can select certain traits in animals and plants. However, Sagan makes an incredible leap in logic when he says, “If artificial selection can do all this in a short time imagine what “natural selection” could do over eons of time." This makes as much sense as saying, “I struck out my little sister so I ought to be able to pitch for the Red Sox.” Artificial selection means the process was controlled from an outside source (Man). The "Natural" in natural selection means the process of change over time happens without an outside source, naturally (without God). Even if we accept that an animal's ability to adapt to its environment would be defined as "Natural Selection", how can something which results from being controlled artificially be used to demonstrate as fact, something which is said to happen naturally without an "artificial" or external controlling factor? Sagan would be more honest if he concluded that since we must artificially control this process to obtain our desired results, then something must have artificially controlled the process to produce the results we observe in nature today. At least that would make sense. Another big problem with Sagan’s logic is that with all our efforts in selective breeding, horses are still horses and cattle are still cattle. How do you take a process that demonstrates animals being selectively bred within their own kind (see Genesis 1:11-25) are producing animals of their own kind, and then use it as an example of animals evolving into different kinds without an external control. It is a ridiculously illogical conclusion.

The fact is, Sagan’s hope is to trick you into believing what we see in artificial selection proves evolution (goo to you) is true, when in fact what we see today (environmental adaptation built into our genetic code through DNA) supports God's Word. I have had many a conversation with good Christian men and women who have fallen for this slight of hand.

Sagan's Imaginary Fossil Record:

Sagan slips in this false claim (a lie) that the fossil record is "unambiguous" in demonstrating this slow evolving process. Amazingly, Sagan's statement is refuted by one of the research scientists he himself used for Cosmos. That man is Dr. Stephen J. Gould a professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University. Dr. Gould writes;

"We know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of
intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically
abrupt.”

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and
nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the
trade secret of paleontology.”

(S.J. Gould “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” pg. 127 “The return of Hopeful Monsters”
pg.22, 24)

Saying It Doesn't Make It So:

After making such a pitifully illogical argument, Sagan has the gall to actually claim to his viewers that, “Evolution s a fact not a theory, it really happened!”. This is flat out lie, and Sagan knows it. He may believe evolution is true, but to claim it has been proven without question (a fact) could only be labeled as a flat out lie. It is an even more ridiculous statement when one considers the weakness of the preceeding arguement.

Going After God:

Now that Sagan believes he has made the case for evolution as scientific fact, he gets back to the stated purpose, “The search for who we are.” Sagan moves into what I can only describe as his Mr. Rogers (won't you be my neighbor) impersonation. Standing in a field of dandelions and wearing a nice sports coat, this unassuming guy with a soft voice is about to tell you there is no God. He starts by saying, “Our ancestors saw the world and believed there was a designer”. This is clever, because the use of the word “ancestors” leads one to think of ancient people with little scientific understanding of their environment. According to Sagan, our ancestors couldn't help believing in a designer (a God) because there was no other explanation available to them. They were just giving us their best “human explanation". However as Sagan claims, "Darwin discovered another way, equally human & far more compelling”. This is classic psychobabble. Just ask yourself, why would it be "far more compelling" to be nothing more than an animal passing on DNA with no real purpose in life, than to be a person specially created by a God who loved them and had an devine purpose for their life? Even if Christianity were a myth, it would be infinitely more compelling than "you live, you die, that’s it.

Time, time and more time:

Because of what follows, Sagan must first make sure we understand the eons of time in which all this took place and the fairytale (one far more unbelievable than anything you have heard) which started it all: Spontaneous Generation

Even though the show has moved back toward the supposed science of evolution, Mr. Sagan will continue to take shots at God. Twice in this segment he will use the phrase, “quite by accident”, and its use is not quite by accident. This phrase simple means without the assistance of asupernatural God. He uses this phrase when referring to the fairytale of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous Generation is a “one time” event in which non-living chemicals sprang to life in a primordial soup billions of years ago. That eventually became what you see in the mirror every day, via the process of evolution (goo to you). Believing spontaneous generation could occur is equivalent to believing our government has a perpetual motion machine and won’t let us use it. If you believe it’s true then show us how. Since Sagan is an astronomer I will quote one of his astronomy peers concerning this mythological event;

“Supposing the first cell (and DNA) originated by chance is like believing a
tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a
brand new Boeing 747.” Quote by, British Astronomer Sir Fredrick HoyleFor more
on this subject go to: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

Mistakes Create Life?

I have always thought it quite odd that evolution basically states we are here because of errors, continual random mistakes. Without these random mistakes (mutations) you and I would not existent. Where in the world do we see any process improve based on continual random mistakes? Don't we fire people for that? It’s just a thought.

Mr. Sagan is now going to explain to us the process by which evolution takes place on the molecular level via random mistakes called mutations. All mutations are mistakes in our DNA and are very rare, as Sagan admits. However, an extremely small percentage of these already rare mutations are said to be beneficial. Over eons of time these “good mutations” allow certain plants and animals to better survive. Of course, this process was completely "by accident". A point Sagan makes sure you don't miss.

Simply Unbelievable:

Sagan is now full on into his deceit, and has saved his very best for this precious moment. Going all the way back to the fairytale myth of spontaneous generation, you get a graphic slide pictorial of molecules to man evolution (goo to you) from the first organism all they way to you and me. After Sagan walks us through his imaginary evolutionary time table, we get ushered all the way back to the first magical moment as we see the buds of life being visually morph into cells and cells into worms, and worms into fish and fish into amphibians and on and on until "poof" there we are standing tall at the top of the food chain. It's a computer aided visual affect that would make Walt Disney proud. Sagan's is using this visual fantasy to entice you into imagining science has traced man back to his most primitive ancestry. He even claims there is an "unbroken thread" from us to the molecules. It's a great presentation, its good graphic work, it's just not true. I'm sure Sagan believes it’s true, which makes the whole thing nothing more than his own misguided propaganda supporting his own misguided beliefs.

I Need A Lung (NOW!)

As we are shown the individual slides being digitally morphed together, Sagan provides commentary describing each leg of our evolutionary journey. He is so good at this you get the feeling Sagan was right there watching the whole process unfold before his eyes. When he gets to the amphibians he actually says, “As the water in the ponds dried up amphibians evolved a primitive lung until the rains came.” You can just picture some fish flopping in a dried up pond screaming, "I need a lung, I need a lung, and I need it RIGHT NOW!

How, with a process which Sagan himself labeled as "painfully slow", would one evolve a lung? If you don’t get that lung quick and fully formed you can’t breathe. If you can’t breathe you will die. If you die you can’t pass on your “good” mutation to your offspring, therefore you can't evolve a lung if the rains don't come. This is known as "Irreducible Complexity" meaning if you don't have the whole thing all at once it is useless. How would one evolve an eye? It's useless unless you get the optic nerve, a lens, a retina and the knowledge (information) to understand what the image means all at once. If you only mutate an optic nerve it doesn't help an evolutionist says it will be discarded because of its usefulness. If you take this line of thought to its logical conclusion, the only way for the evolutionary process to actually work would be if the organism or its DNA developed the supernatural ability of foreknowledge. (being omniscience, all knowing, you know, like God) This way, using its supernatural foreknowledge the DNA could telepathically communicate vital future information to the "god gene" as to which currently non-useful random mutation will be needed for survival in a few thousand years and which one to discard. It's like the "force".

SAY WHAT?

The "Cosmos" is an Emmy award winning show said to have "popularizing science". Based on the following quotes one might assume what they mean by popularizing science is to make statements so rediculous no one would question them.

Check these brainteasers out;

*Speaking of the prehistoric animals we evolved from: “They moved to the trees and developed a curiosity about their environment”.

I guess the other animals were lazy and not curious about their environment! How would he know this?

*Speaking of newly evolved marsupials: “the young had to be taught how to survive”.

If they were evolving why would they all the sudden have to be taught how to survive? If you assume that prior to his time the marsupials younglings didn't have to be taught how to survive, why would they not continue to pass their prior ability to survive without assistance on to the next generation, as this would be very helpful? Easier on mom and dad too!

*“There is an unbroken thread that stretches from those first cells to us”

They must not have read gotten the missing links memo. See what happens when you don't read your emails!

*"Bone for bone, muscle for muscle, molecule for molecule there are almost no important differences between apes and humans."

I know why he says it's true, but just think about how ridiculous this statement really is.

*Last but not least, “that’s what molecules do when given 4 billion years of evolution”

Yes, and this is what you get from smoking too much pot! NOW HOLD ON, You don't yet realize just how funny and prophetic that comment really was, but read on and you will.

Can you believe NASA gave this guy their Humanitarian Award, twice, for what, spreading atheism throughout the universe? He was honored for encouraging young people to take an interest in science; however he used the opportunity to preach his religious beliefs without a response. This makes me wonder where all the "Christians" at NASA were while they were honoring this man. It's frustrating to think of our tax dollars going to support this, especially when you know it is being shown to millions who will believe it hook, line and sinker.

Oh yeah! That reminds me "The Sinkers"

The Joyful Images of Committed Pot Heads:

At the end of the show Sagan takes us on a calculated tour of the Universe. I use the term calculated because Sagan actually says he and another scientist "calculated" the possibility of their amazing visual fantasy. The show ends with us visiting the imaginary world of Sinkers, Floaters and Destroyers. They are all living in the atmosphere of some planet similar to Jupiter. The graphics are incredible and one can just imagine these creatures playfully going about their evolved duties. As my family watched this segment, the comment was made that someone was smoking marijuana when they imagined this fantasy land. Now, the comment was meant to be playful and funny at the time, just among us. However, we were amazed to discover just how close to reality that comment was when, during research for this post, I found the following quotes from both Sagan and his wife. "I have had a wonderful life, and part of that was due to the fact that I smoked marijuana since I was a young woman." (Ann Druyan in a speech at the 2001 Conference of NORML) Carl Sagan wrote a series of essays under an assumed name, Mr. X. In one essay he said, “Marijuana inspired some of my intellectual work.” What was a joke turned out to be a sad truth. NORML, is an organization working to legalize marijuana and Ms. Druyan seems to be quite an “active participant". (Pun intended, she does sit on their board)

Are these the kind of people we want producing material to "popularize science and help students answer the question, "Who are we?" The hilarious fact is that even this wonderland fantasy scenario couldn't come about via evolution. If the sinkers go too far down toward the
Jupiter like planet they would die in it's toxic, heated atmosphere as stated by Sagan. Therefore, they would somehow need to relay this critical information back to the other unsuspecting sinkers but they can't, they're dead. Now if by some chance they could get this information translated back to the others, the ones receiving this vital information would need to evolve some method of staying aloft long enough to then evolve some method of reproducing while in flight all before they sink to their death? I'll tell you this; I'd be working on mutating that staying aloft gene first.

Maybe you need to smoke marijuana for this to make sense? Nah! Who wants a dope smoking preacher? Ok, forget I asked that question. I could keep writing, but based on that last comment, I must be getting tired. Me and the other monkeys are playing in the snow tomorrow. I wonder if I could evolve me up some gloves and ear muffs by sunrise? :)

Have a blessed day,

Scott Cosper

Eyes Wide Open

Eyes Wide Open Introduction Powerpoint