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

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.

Science is science and religion is religion. They are 2 seperate subjects that should not be mixed.
And teaching an alternative is completely going against all findings and discoveries made by modern scientists in the last 400 years or so, you don't teach alternatives in maths do you? You don't here teachers saying "2x2=4 but you can say it's 5 if you believe that". If schools in America are that determined to shove creationism down their students' throats they may as well do it in RE classes, not science.
If my school ever decided to teach the creationist alternative I'd leave.

Science is science and religion is religion.

They are 2 seperate subjects that should not be mixed. ... last 400 years

you don't teach alternatives in maths do you? You don't here teachers saying "2x2=4 but you can say it's 5 if you believe that".

Although I personally do not consider government educational facilities a great place to learn anything other than "socialization" and sports, this is a letter by Dr Werner von Braun advocating the "case for design" to be taught alongside the "case for chance".

Letter to the California State Board of Education by Wernher von Braun,
September 14, 1972

That in and of itself is a contradiction, and it would be apparent to you also if you knew of the history of science.

You see an arrowhead on the beach. No shaft attached to it, no feather for directional drag, but just the arrowhead. You also see a pebble which looks like a shoe. Which is more likely to have occurred by chance? Which is more likely to have occurred by design?

Why? You say it shouldn't be taught in the science classes, and the reason you give is based upon classification and not upon the reasoning for classification. In essence, you provide no actual reason but just a reiteration.

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

Your logic is flawed - Its not a contradiction. Science is based upon reason and proof, religion is based upon believing. The two subjects clash light light and darkness, hot and cold, logical and illogical - no matter what YOUR OPINION is. I do not mix sh** into my milkshakes, even if billions of flies like the taste of it.




So, you are one of those who get all freaky about potato chips shaped like jesus too? Lets extend your logic: If i find a potato chip in the shape of Homer Simpson, will you start worshipping Homer as a divine deity? Or is it a "proof" that Matt Groenig designed the universe?

ID is a theory. It is not a scientific theory and it should never be taught in schools. School is for learning, not for indulging in wishful thinking.

It would seem that Herr Von Braun believes the Universe has a Fuhrer.

My favorite quote from (or about) v. Braun is: I aim for the stars, but sometimes I hit London and Antwerp.

Was immer ausgehen herunterkommen mussen.

ruveyn

Fair criticism, so here are some reasons. In all cases I know, where ID has made predictions that were clear enough to be tested, they were wrong (Behe's claims of irreducible complexity), and where it hasn't been proven wrong that's only because it is too vague.

Can you give any reasons why ID should be considered science? A little over two years ago both you and Ragtime complained that ID was not treated as a scientific theory. I set up a thread where I invited all ID proponents to say why they think ID is a scientific theory. You did not take part. Ragtime did, but had nothing substantial to say. Only last month I explained to you why propositional logic is not good enough to compare scientific hypotheses, and why you have to learn something about statistical reasoning (link). You again had nothing to say. But you always come back in other threads with the same kinds of arguments that you could not defend before. Based on the information available to me, I can't distinguish you from someone who neither knows what a scientific theory is, nor wants to know. I also can't distinguish you from someone who systematically refuses to think about anything that poses a risk of changing his mind.

ID's prediction of design in the genome, in opposition to the notion of junk DNA, similar to previously creationist argumentation against vestigial organs in favor of the notion that we just had not currently understood the function of the vestigial organs, would quite easily serve as demonstration to how such an ideology (whether it is consider scientific or not) is able to be beneficial to science. It encourages the seeking out of design in the things we don't yet understand and hence promotes better understanding rather than just classification.

You see an arrowhead on the beach. No shaft attached to it, no feather for directional drag, but just the arrowhead. You also see a pebble which looks like a shoe. Which is more likely to have occurred by chance? Which is more likely to have occurred by design?

It is hard to say. Do we have other cases of design to appeal back to? Do we know more about the nature of the rocks? Perhaps one kind of rock is more likely to look like an arrowhead than another. I really can't know, and the best way to know is likely by performing some form of Bayesian analysis that takes into account all of the relevant variables.