The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Sagan suggests the ability to learn “how to learn” (321) has diminished in succeeding American generations and that children are not sufficiently introduced to the natural wonders of science. Sagan’s opportunities to teach young children have allowed him to witness their natural enthusiasm for learning and collective awe at science, but by the time they reach adulthood this malleability of mind and spirit has calcified and it is difficult to introduce new modes of thinking. This, Sagan argues, is a danger to the US.

Sagan reviews studies of American students from 1993 and 1994. The results are extremely dispiriting, with consistently low scores in every subject. Moreover, the general public has one of the worst literacy and scientific literacy rates in the world. America is floundering, but Sagan doesn’t see this as evidence that American children lack intelligence. Rather, this is because teachers are undertrained, programs are underfunded, and, importantly, students get no experience with scientific experimentation in school, only rote learning of conclusions. There are also no tangible benefits for studying hard, as higher grades don’t directly result in higher salaries. Sagan proposes more funding for schools, more training for teachers, inspiring curricula including lab courses and courses on skeptical thinking, and more scientists communicating with the public.

While William Blake, the visionary British poet, saw angels in sunbeams, Sagan sees vaster beauties in the deep natural processes observed by science. He lists potential areas of study that should excite the imagination, and offers suggestions for how to better communicate popular science to the wider public, including avoiding "unjustified religious conclusions" (335). Equally important is to depict the journey to discovery of famous scientists, humanizing the scientific process.

After publishing an abbreviated version of Chapter 19 in Parade magazine, Sagan reprints selections of letters from its 80 million subscribers. First, he includes letters from American high school students, whose diction and understanding of Sagan’s salient points is severely limited; some of the students agree with Sagan but argue their deficiencies aren’t so severe, while most defensively disagree. The letters Sagan receives from adults reflect that they understand the severity of the problem, though they blame the decline run on political affiliation, accusing “flag-waving, God-loving automatons” and those practicing “rampant socialism” (344). Responses from teachers attribute the deficiencies to a broken education system, low-funding, and under-motivated students. It is clear to Sagan that many can recognize the current problems, but there is no consensus on the solution.

Sagan suggests that a higher engagement with science can be taught through more direct experience with the wonder and mysteries of science, such as the type he had as a child when his parents took him to the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Bringing children to museums and science centers fosters curiosity, and seeing visual demonstrations embeds lessons deeper. For example, members of Cornell’s faculty banded together with community members to build an educational science center in Ithaca, New York, that now benefits the local population.