The Invitation to Carl Sagan
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
In the October 21, 2012 Spiritual Perspectives, I wrote a letter to the editor (which met all of their specifications but went unpublished anyway) in which I mentioned that Carl Sagan ignored the offer to debate brother Thomas B. Warren. This information deserves more of an explanation. Most of what is referenced here was first published in the October, 1981 issue of the Spiritual Sword (28-31). In 1987 it was included in the 1987 lectureship book of the Southwest Church of Christ in Austin Texas, when they devoted their book to a study of 1-2 Peter and Jude (267-83). This material was again published in the Annual Denton Lectureship Book that covered those same books in 1998. That all may know what transpired at that time, since Carl Sagan is such a vaunted hero of evolution, what occurred is hereby reprinted, and it ought to remain in print with various publications calling attention to it periodically. No comments are really needed: Brother Warren's words explain it all. He wrote:
Will Prof. Carl Sagan Face Up to an Acceptance of His "Open Challenge" to Biblical Creationists?
Dr. Carl Sagan, Professor of Astronomy in Cornell University, was recently described, in a leading journal, as a sort of super-star of science (Time, Oct. 20, 1980). Of him Time says, "Sagan also issues some open challenges. To Creationists, who argue for a biblical interpretation of life's beginnings, he states that evolution is not a theory, it is a fact" (October 20, 1980, p. 63).
Even before this article appeared in Time, the Central Church of Christ in Visalia, California had written (Oct. 9, 1980) both to Professor Sagan and to me, inviting us to be the two disputants in a public oral debate on the question of the origin of human beings (was it by creation or evolution?). This effort to arrange such a debate had arisen out of the enormous publicity which had been given, in the various news and entertainment media, to Professor Sagan and his anti-God, anti-creation views. Among these had been Johnny Carson's "Tonight" Show and Sagan's "Cosmos" series on televisionoth both of which were viewed by millions. Then the Time article (with Professor Sagan on the cover) appeared under date of Oct. 20, 1980.
Since the Time article indicated (1) that Prof. Sagan had issued challenges to "Biblical creationists" and 2) that Sagan knew [emph. gws] that evolution was not merely a theory but a fact, I felt certain that he would quickly respond by accepting (as I did) the invitation which had been extended to us to debate the question of the ultimate origin of human beings. But Sagan did not respond to the invitation at all.
In light of Dr. Sagan's lack of response to the invitation to debate, the minister (Mark K. Lewis) who had written the letter (for the Church involved which extended the invitation to us) again wrote (on Dec. 4, 1980) to Professor Sagan urging him to respond to and accept the invitation to debate. Again, no response came from Dr. Sagan.
After waiting almost two months for a response to Lewis' December 4th letter, I myself wrote (on January 26, 1981), to Dr. Sagan, a letter in which I said the following:
Dear Professor Sagan:
Several weeks ago I received from the Central Church of Christ, Visalia, California (through their evangelist, Mark K. Lewis), an invitation to engage in public debate on the ultimate origin of human beings. Mr. Lewis indicated that you were being invited to be the other disputant in a four-night debate on the very crucial topic. You were invited to affirm, in effect, that all human beings now living owe their ultimate origin to evolution (by purely naturalistic, non-purposive, non-intelligent, non-living materialistic forces), and I to affirm that we human beings owe our ultimate origin to the miraculous creative activity of the infinite God. I immediately accepted that invitation. So far as I know, you have not responded to that invitation.
Since I feel that this matter is of such great importance to every individual, to our nation, and to the world, and since I am certain that God created man, since (according to Time Oct. 20, 1980, p. 63) you are certain that evolution is not merely a theory but a fact, and since (according to Time) you have issued "some open challenges" to "Biblical creationists" (of which I am one), I am convinced that this opportunity for a four-night debate on this matter should not be allowed to escape us. Thus I am writing you to urge you to accept this invitation to debate the issue. It seems that no scholar of your stature would issue such a challenge and then be unwilling to defend it when it has been accepted.
I have met in public debate (on The Existence of God\a question which included much discussion of the theory of evolution), such world-renowned philosophers as Professor Antony G. N. Flew of Reading University (England) and Professor Wallace I. Matson of the University of California at Berkeley. Both of these debates have been published in book form.
Since you have been so splendidly straightforward in issuing, according to Time, "open challenges" to "Biblical creationists," permit me to be just as forthright in accepting your challenge and in saying that, in light of your challenges, I feel certain that you will feel under obligation to accept this invitation to publicly test (with an opponent who strongly disagrees with you) the claims which you have made for the theory of evolution.
May Mr. Lewis and I hear from you as soon as your convenience will allow? Since I feel that the editors of various magazines which have recently described you as being something of a champion for the view that all human beings now living owe their ultimate origin to evolution, I am sending a copy of this letter to them. I feel certain that these editors will recognize the element of fairness needed in the matter of your having been pictured as issuing "some open challenges" to "Biblical creationists" in regard to the theory of evolution not being merely a theory but a fact. Perhaps some of them might even be interested in noting that there are some who are willing to affirm in honorable public oral debate that they know that all human beings now living owe their ultimate origin to the miraculous, creative activity of God. If you are right (about evolution and there being no infinite God), then nothing really matters. If I am right (about my view that men can know that God exists and that He created the first human pair), then nothing else matters more.
I sincerely hope that you will accept\as I have\the invitation to be a disputant in this proposed public debate.
Best wishes always,
Respectfully yours,
s/Thomas B. Warren
Carl Sagan, the champion of evolutionists, never responded to the invitation to debate nor to brother Warren's letter to him. All who know of this situation cannot help but wonder, "Why did Sagan issue all of these challenges and then totally ignore someone who was willing to take up the gauntlet he had thrown down? We cannot say if other Creationists offered to accept his offer, but we know that he rejected this one by refusing to reply to it. If Sagan had a valid reason for declining the debate, he did not mention it. He did not write to the Visalia church or to brother Warren and say, "My schedule will not permit me to accept a debate in 1981; I will make it a point to clear my schedule for 1982 because I really want to have this discussion." Sagan did not sight health reasons as a cause for not debating, either. In fact, he might have written, "I do not have time for an oral debate, but I will engage in a written debate with you," but he chose not to do that, either.
So, a person is left with his imagination as to the silence of Sagan. Was he just trying to sound good by issuing challenges to creationists? Did he think that no one would possibly have enough nerve to face the great, world-renowned Carl Sagan? But a fully qualified individual did take up his challenge, and he collapsed like a house of cards. He obviously never intended to discuss his worldview with a well-qualified creationist. In this action, he is not much different than most college professors, who choose to run roughshod over their students but don't really want their positions critically examined.
Bias in the Media
Just as he had indicated to Carl Sagan, brother Warren sent a copy of his letter to Time. An editor wrote back to brother Warren saying that the magazine would be unable to publish any part of his letter. Why not? It means that they were delighted to inform their readers that Sagan was issuing open challenges to creationists, but they did not want their readers to know of Sagan's refusal to have such a discussion. In other words, the readers of Time would have the impression that no one could stand up to Carl Sagan.
This heavy-handed attitude of the magazine was one of the first indications (for this writer, at least) of bias in the media\for atheism and against Christianity. Since that time, we have all seen how unfairly the media is in their treatment of Christians, morality, and political candidates. On February 26, 1981, Doctor Warren again wrote to Time, stating his qualifications and desire to have such a discussion. On March 9th, he received a reply that Time was correct in their statement that Sagan was issuing challenges to creationists, but they never informed their readers of his neglect to avail himself of such an opportunity.
Creationism in Schools
In the latter part of 1981, the ACLU (the AC does not stand for anti-Christian, but it should) filed a lawsuit in Arkansas which brought the question of man's origin to the forefront. Several churches in Memphis took out a full-page newspaper ad, describing what was currently going on in Arkansas. Below are portions of that ad.
2. What Should be Going On. There should be public, oral discussions between men who are qualified to discuss the question of (1) the existence of God and (2) the ultimate origin of human beings. If there is no God, then nothing really matters (not even what university professors say about human beings having non-human ancestors). If God does exist, then nothing matters more. Creationists recognize and honor the law of rationality, which says, "One should draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence." Thus we are willing to meet in honorable, public, oral debate such evolutionists as Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, and/or Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University. We offer to defend the creationist view, Dr. Thomas B. Warren (B.S., Abilene Christian University; M.A. University of Houston…Ph.D. Vanderbilt University….
4. The Propositions Which we Propose. We kindly and lovingly challenge either Dr. Carl Sagan or Dr. Stephen Jay Gould to meet in a four-night debate (comprised of two hours and ten minutes each night) Dr. Thomas B. Warren, using the following propositions as the basis for the debate (the date, time, building, and city to be mutually agreed upon).
RESOLVED: I know that God does exist and that all human beings now living owe their ultimate origin (as human beings) to the miraculous creative activity of God.
AFFIRM: ___ Thomas B. Warren
DENY: _ Carl Sagan or Stephen Jay Gould
RESOLVED: I know that God does not exist and that all human beings now living owe their ultimate origin (as human beings) to evolution (by purely naturalistic forces) from non-living matter.
We urge all men to realize that the truly crucial issue in all these matters is which of these propositions is true. After all, Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Jno. 8:32). We stand ready to produce the evidence which proves that God created man….
Copies of this challenge are being sent to Dr. Carl Sagan, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Prof. Michael Ruse, and the Arkansas Academy of Science. With every good wish to all concerned, we urge an acceptance of this challenge.
This full-page advertisement was then signed by the various churches who contributed money in order to have the advertisement published. Isn't it interesting that evolutionists can get all the news coverage and publicity available, but a legitimate effort to set the truth before people the print media balks at?
Of course, we do not mean to imply that the newspaper and other outlets do not provide coverage of religious issues. Whenever a religious group does something really flakey, they will give print space to it, such as the "Jamaican Me Praise" appeal that a group did here awhile back. Oh, yes, if there is some scandal going on, they will be sure to report that, such as a youth minister becoming involved with a teen or a minister getting caught in a prostitution sting. Our complaint is not these stories should not be reported; they are entirely legitimate. But where is the news coverage for congregations that have been around for 50 or 100 years and are still making positive contributions to the community? How about giving some newsprint to those who have successfully challenged atheism and evolution?
No one expects the media to change, although they have. Believe it or not, there was a time when the Tenneseean and the Nashville Banner actually published N. B. Hardeman's sermons when he preached to crowds of 6,000 to 8,000 in the Ryman Auditorium. Has any newspaper published a sermon by anyone in the past 50 years without being paid to do so? We are fortunate if a newspaper published a letter to the editor these days. Of course, there is no use whining about the way things are. The Internet is available to get much of this material out on. And we also have written venues like this one and several other publications in which to get out the message that atheism and evolution have successfully been debated and that other challenges have been met with silence on the part of the "experts."