THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS (VON BRAUN)

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 1/1/2000 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: Three things he wasn't: a biologist, a paleontologist, or a YEC. It's possible I could be mistaken on the last point but I doubt it.

Dataman: Meaning what? That he wasn't qualified to comment on the issue?

Yes, his opinion would have more weight on this issue if he had worked anywhere near the fields of expertise most involved. As it stands, he was a far spectator. He also died in 1977 and thus missed a lot. It might have been interesting to see his reaction to the molecular evidence, the hominid fossils, the walking whales, the feathered dinos, the legged sirenians ...

And I believe that he was not a Young Earth Creationist, which means the endorsement you attempt to imply here of the position you and bondserv hold never happened.

[bondserv]

For an in-depth look into the fantasy being created view this site.

At the top of the page you can quickly review the fictional genre of your choice by recent esteemed authors over the past three years.

Enjoy the "Bowling for Columbine" of the "reputable" scientific magazines.

[bondserv]

Just for the record, I am a Young Earth Creationist because that is what a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates. I am also led to believe in a Young Earth by logically considering the precariousness of our environment when one considers what we know about our universe.

Billions of years of random complexity, in light of the catastrophic occurrences that have plagued the world in recent history, makes extended periods of time highly unlikely.

I would be unsurprised to discover that Von Braun took the same position.

[Maximilian]

Thanks very much for this link. From the bio page one must click on "Werner von Braun in his own words" to get to the really good stuff. It's interesting that not only was he one of the world's pre-eminent scientists, but he was not even particularly religious, yet he wrote these two pieces on the necessity for a Designer in creation.

Letter to the California State Board of Education:

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?

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.

AN ESSAY ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH

For me the idea of a creation is inconceivable without God. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a divine intent behind it all.

Some evolutionists believe that the creation is the result of a random arrangement of atoms and molecules over billions of years. But when they consider the development of the human brain by random processes within a time span of less than a million years, they have to admit that this span is just not long enough. Or take the evolution of the eye in the animal world. What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?

I'm impressed with the clarity with which he expressed these concepts which I never encountered until another generation had gone by and we had people like Michael Behe.

The strongest argument in favor of evolution is the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument: "You're a back-woods hillbilly if you don't believe in evolution." This is the single weapon that is pulled out on every occasion by the evolutionists. Yet how many of those who use that argument would want to place their resume next to Werner von Braun who is not only the "father of space travel," but apparently the "father of intelligent design" as well.

[SAMWolf]

Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience.
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown,
"Ha, Nazi, Schmazi," says Wernher von Braun.

Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude,
Like the widows and cripples in old London town,
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

You too may be a big hero,
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero.
"In German oder English I know how to count down,
Und I'm learning Chinese!" says Wernher von Braun.

Professor Tom Lehrer

[bondserv]

Excellent!

Thank You.

[VadeRetro]

I would be unsurprised to discover that Von Braun took the same position.

He would have had some familiarity with, and correct understanding of, the evidence for what your link calls "long ages." Indeed, as I suspected, he seems not to have been a YEC and I would be stunned to hear differently.

[bondserv]

The strongest argument in favor of evolution is the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument: "You're a back-woods hillbilly if you don't believe in evolution."

What you postulate appears to have been inacted on this thread. Ignore the message and destroy the messenger.

[bondserv]

I have yet to see his position on the age of the earth. As you know there are many Christians who take differing views on the age of the earth. This issue does not make or break a persons destiny in eternity with God.

I have Christian friends who are post tribulational rapture adherents, and I still call them brethren in Christ.

[VadeRetro]

You could read your own link. Late in life he wrote a science book which assumes "long ages."

[old-ager]

> Yet how many of those who use that argument would want to place their resume next to Werner von Braun

The loudmouth know-nothing evolutionists/abortionists here on FR have no shame at all doing this. Well, they won't post their own resume, but they are perfectly content calling people like Dr. David Menton an "idiot". And if they have to, they'll end up calling Von Braun one too.

[bondserv]

1. Was Von Braun brillant?
2. Was Von Braun a believer in God?

Alignment is critical!

[Maximilian]

This is a little off the beaten path for my usual subjects, but this is article provides an excellent resource. Please see post #24 and the links to Werner von Braun's own words on creation and intelligent design.

The source web page also has an excellent article on Gregor Mendel which is very much worth reading. At the same time that the charlatan Darwin was foisting his psuedo-science on the gullible, real science that has become the basis of real genetics, not the phony Darwinian kind, was being done by the Catholic monk Gregor Mendel. His years of dedicated scientific work and observation led him to genuine breakthroughs and allowed him to realize how false were the fairy tales for atheists being proposed by his contemporary, Darwin.

[Virginia-American]

The loudmouth know-nothing evolutionists/abortionists here on FR ...

Examples, please. Especially the abortionist part.

[old-ager]

> abortionist

Are you an evolutionist? You're not much of one if your thinking is so sentimental as to think there's some fundamental difference between a human and, say, a cow.

[DonQ]

This is silly. It tries to exaggerate Von Braun's single (and rather ill-advised) venture into endorsing the "two method" teaching in the California schools (at a time when it was still risky to talk about evolution in a straightforward way) as an endorsement of Creationism. The same article also claims George Washington Carver as a Creationist (and attributes peanut butter to him).

[bondserv]

I think they are refering to the natural inability of those espousing that we are just evolved ameobas, have no grounds to defend the sanctity of human life.

It is a logical link to make as you eat your hamburger.

[bondserv]

This is silly. It tries to exaggerate Von Braun's single (and rather ill-advised) venture into endorsing the "two method" teaching in the California schools (at a time when it was still risky to talk about evolution in a straightforward way) as an endorsement of Creationism. The same article also claims George Washington Carver as a Creationist (and attributes peanut butter to him).

It is clear he believed in a designer. I don't understand your point. A brilliant scientist who believes in the God of the Christian Bible. Simple.

Why must the messenger by torn down, when the point is straightforward and obvious?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Our sun is one of 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies populating the universe. It would be the height of presumption to think that we are the only living things in that enormous immensity.
-Wernher von Braun (At Peenemünde he was responsible for the successful development of the German V-2 liquid fuel rocket and also for other rocket weapons. )

Biography Link

[SengirV]

Our sun is one of 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies populating the universe. It would be the height of presumption to think that we are the only living things in that enormous immensity.
-Wernher von Braun

What an astute observation. But since it is not referenced in the bible, it can't possibly be true.