Contact by Carl Sagan (1985)

Ok, this might surprise some of you, but the 1997 film Contact starring Jodi Foster and Matthew McConnaughy (and James Woods) is one of my all-time favorite movies. It’s a film of discovery and awe—what Carl Sagan calls “the numinous”—and even though I’ve memorized every mystery and outdated quirk within it, I still could watch it again and again.

This is why I chose finally to read Sagan’s original novel. Yes, I too had heard it was akin to an Atheist manifesto (it’s not), and that to read it would hinder my view of God (it didn’t). But surviving the film’s worldview gave me hope for the book. I’m glad I took the plunge, and while I’m obviously not into “Theistic Evolution”, I was at least pleasantly surprised with Sagan’s writing and concluding opinion which hints at Intelligent Design.

The book is a Sci-fi drama, akin to The Three Body Problem (2006) and with minor hints of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Drama isn’t my normal fare, but it’s necessary when you need fiction that offers something more than mere amusement.

Note: this post includes Amazon affiliate links.

Brief Summary of Contact

You may know this story as one of alien contact with humans on Earth. It is that, though we never get to “see” the Aliens—just the costumes they wear and the mysteries they broadcast.

This book follows the career of Ellie Arroway, a radio astronomer who discovers a signal from Space near the star Vega that ends up being a message sent in thumps of prime numbers. Encoded in these sounds are images and “words,” eventually decipherable using the language of mathematics.

The whole world comes together to uncover this mystery, debate its intent, and contemplate the possibilities of constructing the Machine which the unknown alien race has designed. Of course, the world is also torn apart by the moral, cultural, and theological implications of intelligent life out there, somewhere. Some believe the machine is a doomsday device, others think it’s angelic, and still other think it demonic.

How the Book Differs from the Film

When it comes to the debate between book versions vs. film versions of a story, I waffle between the two. Obviously, execution matters, so my opinions will always vary from story to story. In this case, I still side with the film, but only because I’ve so long been a fan of it.

The film and books version of any story will have its own advantages, of course. Films have the spectacle of a director’s imagination, but books have the color of your own. Books offer internal dialogue, while films use creative nonverbal cues to achieve something similar. Films contain the major plot and a few subplots, while books generally weave a far more intricate web of plots and sub-plots and sub-sub-plots.

While I’m usually partial to book versions, I believe that’s generally because I want a good story to continue for as long as possible, rather than finish in two hours or less. In the case of Contact, I was happy to read Sagan’s extended story and meet new characters and plot twists that the film never contained.

Of particular interest to me was the Cold War angle—something necessarily present in 1985 that was no longer needed in 1997. I also appreciated the deeper insight into Ellie’s family woes, something that’s referenced in the movie but almost central to the book.

Several characters from the film are virtually unrecognizable in the book, which is great, because I didn’t want the conversations to be too predictable. There’s an extra preacher, Indian and Russian friends, almost no romance between Ellie and Palmer Joss, and a female President. The most shocking difference, though, was that The Machine carried five passengers to Vega, not one.

I also loved reading more about the enigmatic Haddin—seeing his lurid background and his well-designed future. He was a mysterious, oddball tycoon in the film, and the book gives him a softer, human edge.

Not the “Atheist” Book I Had Anticipated

Although I approached the book with moderate hesitancy, I was struck by how religious the story actually is. Sure, it’s a misguided religion that doesn’t view God as the Almighty and sovereign Creator, but at least it acknowledges He exists! It’s not a good foundation for a believer, but it’s step in the right direction for an Atheist—or an agnostic like Ellie.

The Big Bang is part of this fantasy universe Sagan has created, as is what’s popularly known as “Theistic Evolution”—where God has abandoned his creation to let it sort itself out. I don’t believe in either heresy, but I also didn’t expect to see God play any role in a Sci-Fi novel, like this so I was pleasantly surprised.

Through Ellie (a “Christian” character who for most of the book does not believe in God), Sagan eventually proposes the possibility of Intelligent Design—even if the “Designer” has left the universe in the capable hands of his supremely intelligent creations. In fact, the way Ellie views these alien creatures is the way many of us want to envision God—and I hope it’s not improper to say that. Take this passage, for example, of Ellie’s awe at their immense wisdom:

She couldn’t imagine what thinking would be like if you were much more capable than a human being. Of course. No surprise. What did she expect? It was like trying to visualize a new primary color or a world in which you could recognize several hundred acquaintances individually only whether smells.… She could talk about this, but she couldn’t experience it. But definition, it has to be mighty hard to understand the behavior of a being much smarter than you are. (87)

Elementary Anti-biblical Apologetics

I didn’t know how else to title this section, so there it is. When Ellie converses with the country’s top two Theologians—one, a fiery Tele-fundamentalist; the other, the hip Palmer Joss—she flings her biblical criticism with supposed expertise, leaving the men speechless. Much of this happens in Chapter 10, and the truth is, counterarguments would only be too easy for any Bible-college freshman to produce.

Throughout the book, Ellie takes every chance she can to attack God, and she goes for the jugular. Yet the more snares she sets for Him, the more she endangers herself down the line. It’s the old Psalmist prayer coming true (i.e. Psalm 69:22). Take this tirade as an example:

All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn’t want lots, wife to look back, why didn’t he make a obedient, so she do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn’t made lots such a shithead, maybe she would’ve listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: the biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business, if there was any competition. (287)

While I don’t expect to anyone ever to come up with proofs that contradict the Bible or God’s supremacy, I would expect someone of Ellie’s (Sagan’s) caliber to make some stronger points. After all, if the Bible truly is “half barbarism history, half fairy tales”, as her dad had taught (31), then it should be simple enough to disprove time and time again. Instead, the Word remains as powerful today as when first delivered, and archaeology continues to buttress its historicity.

The Angel’s Advocate

This leads me back to that intriguing character, Palmer Joss (played by Matthew McConoughy in the film), who speaks a non-denominational, roughly Bible-based truth right back at Ellie. There were so many good quotes, I’ve got to cherry-pick my favorite. So as my only example, I’ll share this about the distrust Science has for faith:

The scientists keep their findings to themselves, give us a little bits and pieces – enough to keep us quiet. They think we’re too stupid to understand what they do. They give us conclusions without evidence, findings, as if they were holy writ and not speculations, theories, hypotheses– what ordinary people would call guesses. They never ask if some new theory is as good for people as the belief that it tries to replace. They overestimate what they know and underestimate what we know. When we ask for explanations, they tell us it takes years to understand. I know about that, because in religion also there are things that take years to understand. You can spend a lifetime and never come close to understanding the nature of Almighty God. But you don’t see the scientist coming to religious leaders to ask them about their years of study and insight in prayer. They never give us a second thought, except when they mislead us and deceive us. (136)

Another Visionary Who Couldn’t Predict the Future

As a quick aside, I want to note how visionary writers like Jules Verne, Arthur C. Clarke, Issac Asimov, and Carl Sagan used their imaginations to explore the limitless possibilities of the future—yet they were all still products of their times. It always strikes me how far off they generally are in their non-predictions!

In this book, for example, Sagan envisions the U.S. having its first female President in the late 1990s, yet the rest of the nation remains incapable of taking a female Ph.D. seriously. He also could design this ingenious mathematical language and the alien’s multi-dimensional communication that forces backwards humanity to build a machine which can bend both space and time, yet he couldn’t envision technology improving on the floppy disk by the year 2000 (132). It just makes me laugh.

Conclusion

All in all, I truly enjoyed this book, for me a multi-day revision of a fantastic film. I have a latent obsession with space travel and still hope that someday I can explore it myself (just need this blogging to start paying, so I can afford a SpaceX tour!), so I will always be drawn to books of Sci-fi realism.

If Sagan’s other books are anything like this, I would gladly give them a go, though I fear I’d have to battle opposing worldviews whenever I crack them. My goal is to magnify God as much as I can, and while Intelligent Design might be that step in the right direction for many, it’s still a step too far backwards for Bible-believing Christians.

©2026 E.T.

Want more? Get Elliot’s Weekly Digest.