Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977 
Posted on 02/07/2004 5:41:19 PM PST by bondserv
Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977
“It’s not exactly rocket science, you know.” The cliche implies that rocket science is the epitome of something that is difficult, obscure, and abstruse; something comprehensible only by the brainiest of the smart. Names that qualify for the title “father of rocket science” include Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and von Braun. But Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was mostly a visionary and chalkboard theorist, and Robert Goddard only targeted the upper atmosphere for his projects; he was also secretive and suspicious of others to a fault. Of the three, and any others that could be listed, Wernher von Braun has the prestige of actually taking mankind from the simple beginnings of rocketry all the way to the moon and the planets. His name is almost synonymous with rocket science. He is an icon of the space age. As we will see, he should be remembered for much more than that.
Von Braun (pronounced fon BROWN – and roll the R) is important in this series because he was recent enough to be in the living memory of many, and we have a great deal of documentation, photographs and motion pictures of him. Even young people (that is, anyone under 40) who did not live through the glory days of Apollo are all familiar with three of von Braun’s last great projects he took from vision to reality: the Space Shuttle, orbiting space stations and interplanetary travel. Unquestionably, he had a great deal of help. One does not do rocket science alone! At the height of the Apollo program, some 600,000 employees were involved in tasks from machining parts to managing large flight operations centers. Yet by wide consensus and by results achieved, Wernher von Braun was a giant among giants: highly regarded by his peers, respected by all who worked with him, a celebrity to the public, showered with honors, and unquestionably responsible for much of the success of the space program. Few have ever personally taken a dream of epic proportions to reality. The peaceful exploration of space! It was the stuff of dreams — dreams by Kepler, Jules Verne, science fiction novels and countless childhood imaginations, yet today it is almost too commonplace. Von Braun dreamed, but made it happen. He was the right man with the right stuff at the right time.
What kind of person was he? Many great scientists are quirkish or aloof in their personal lives, but we’re going to reveal a lesser-known side of von Braun, a spiritual side that kept him humble, grateful, unselfish, and strong. We’ll see a remarkably well-rounded individual, a family man who loved swimming and travel and popularizing science for children; a man who loved life, had charisma and energy and dignity and integrity, handled huge projects yet kept a winning smile and a sense of humor even in the most stressful of project deadlines. We’ll see a model of leadership that success-bound corporate heads would do well to emulate. Maybe you didn’t know (incidentally) that he was also a Christian and creationist. But first, a review of his record.
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
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.
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.
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.AN ESSAY ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITHWhile 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.
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.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.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?
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.
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.
What you postulate appears to have been inacted on this thread. Ignore the message and destroy the messenger.
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.
Examples, please. Especially the abortionist part.
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?
What an astute observation. But since it is not referenced in the bible, it can't possibly be true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.