[In the following essay, Harnack discusses the success of the television program Cosmos and Sagan's appearance before the American Humanist Association to receive its Humanist of the Year award in 1981.]

On April 18, 1981, the American Humanist Association, at their Fortieth Annual Conference held in San Diego, named Carl Sagan 1981 Humanist of the Year.

In his address, Sagan simply yet eloquently noted that plants, animals, and humans are all part of a whole. The Greeks, in glimpsing the distribution of the elements of the cosmos, had a vision of surpassing importance. We now know that we can make all the essential building blocks of life. We believe the single-cell organism, the first form of life, was like a free-floating molecular complex—like DNA—or "naked gene." Yet there is more to discover.

Although most people throughout history have chosen to believe that "God did it" when trying to understand the complexities of the universe, Sagan proceeded to take a scientific approach. He began with the elemental composition of the universe and expanded his analysis to make comprehensible the two conflicting views of the direction of the universe—the theory of an expanding and infinite universe as opposed to an oscillating one. He paused, sensing the audience's wish to know which one was true, and added, "You don't have to make up your minds right now. Wait till the data are in. Keep an open mind."

This theme was the thrust of a very interesting and, to humanists constantly under assault by the religious right these days, inspiring speech.

Why choose Carl Sagan as Humanist of the Year?

As one of the most popular figures in the world today, Carl Sagan combines a solid academic background as an astronomer and researcher with the identifiability of a film or rock star. He is a teacher who can communicate such seemingly unfathomable concepts as black holes, via various media, to a roomful of people, such as assembled in the Hotel San Diego, or to millions through his books and television programs.

Cosmos, Sagan's television series about the origin, design, and direction of the universe, was the most widely seen series in the history of public television in America. Aired this past year (with a beautiful follow-up book published by Random House), Cosmos was one reason for granting this year's award to Dr. Sagan. This series proved something that needed to be proved—both regarding television programming and, more importantly, about the nature of the American public. To quote Sagan, "People are more intelligent than publishing house executives and television programmers believe. Cosmos was popular because it presented a cosmic perspective as opposed to the creationist view," with which, he went on to say, one is bombarded just about anytime one turns on the set.

For this alone, humanists applaud Carl Sagan. The showing of Cosmos was coincidental with the formation of the Moral Majority and the largest swing to a religiopolitical right this country has ever experienced. Yet many people, hungry not necessarily for Jerry Falwell's truth but rather for truth based on their own understanding of the data, tuned in in record-breaking numbers. "We are by nature a scientific species," Sagan reminded us. "We are descended from the guys who 'figured it out.'"

While he centered on the most up-to-date explanations of the origin and nature of the universe—and why these disprove fundamentalists who literally "add up the begats" in the Bible and conclude that the Earth is about six thousand years old—the afternoon debate between Tim LaHaye and Gerald Larue was clearly on his mind. As a scientist and a seeker of all evidence, the New Right's opposition to other views bothers him. "Creationists do not want the other view [evolution]," and then, realizing his audience, "the view that, for some reason I don't understand, they credited you people for. When I first read their stuff, I didn't know who the secular humanists were. Turned out it was just you guys!" The audience laughed.

He explained that every culture has had a "creation myth," and he finds it troubling that the theory of evolution has been dismissed by many as "only a theory"—explaining that the word theory has an unfortunate connotation. "Because it is not written in stone, it is a no less well-developed way of knowing."

During the discussion period, AHA administrator Fred Edwords asked for a response to the creationists' claim that the perfect balance for life on Earth is evidence of their view. Dr. Sagan dismissed their argument as "confusing cause and effect" and explained that differing conditions may produce different life forms. Bette Chambers, coordinator of the Association's Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science, asked about the possibility of more forums for debate between scientists and creationists in scientific organizations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Sagan responded that, while many of his colleagues seem to be afraid to air the opposition's views, believing in the Sam Goldwyn theory that "publicity is good, and good publicity is better," he thinks such forums are an excellent idea because "truth will out."

Sagan cautioned that even some humanists proclaim too much before enough data are in. He mentioned as cases in point "those committed atheists who believe there is compelling evidence that no god exists" and the AHA's statement concerning astrology, with which he largely agrees but believes is too "authoritarian."

He concluded by stating that he is very glad that the AHA exists and considers the award a great honor.

"The pursuit of science should be fun," Sagan observed, and the aim of science, quoting Socrates, is "to know a deep thing well." We can thank Carl Sagan for helping millions achieve these objectives.