Wernher von Braun and Intelligent Design in the '70s

Post Reply New Topic

Dear Mr. Grose: In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the “Case for DESIGN” as a viable scientific theory or the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without evoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world round us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system or the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the “Case for Design” as a viable scientific alternative to the current “Case for Chance” lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists’ minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

Wernher von Braun

The arrowhead is nearly symmetrical and, well there are various forms of arrowheads some made out of steel, but lets say this one is made out of flint and its sharpness is due to pressure flaking in such a manner as to produce symmetry. The pebble which looks like a shoe shows signs of erosion along the grain.

Life seems more like the pebble shoe, as compared to what? There is more likelihood that the arrowhead was designed and fashioned by an intelligent being than the pebble shoe because the arrowhead is less likely to have occurred on its own. However, Paley's watch need not be looked at in relation to anything else either, nor does a tank, a shotgun, a flamethrower, a sword, etc. These things are all designed, we know this by history of course, but there are a few other aspects to them which also betray their origin in the minds of engineers and craftsman rather than by chance and natural processes alone. Can you see that?

I mean, if God designed the brain, why are there still creationists??? (irony of ironies )

I mean, if God designed the brain, why are there still creationists??? (irony of ironies )

I would think twice about what a rattling old Nazi rocket-maker thinks about "alternatives".

He's about as much of a Nazi as Oscar Schindler. He was even arrested by the Gestapo because he initially refused to have his A-4 program converted into a weapon, and he only agreed to afterward under threats and constant guard. At the Mittlework factory he argued in favor of better conditions for the workers, although on pragmatic grounds the same as Schindler had to.

Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes. Not even as an "alternative". Creation is part of theology not science. and it should be kept within the realms of theology.

All of which, of course, qualifies him as an evolutionary biologist of the first order.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without evoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world round us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design.