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 ...
No sweeping here, although I see the evidence as islands more than mountains. My personal OPINON is that Evolution is a part of Intelligent Design. I don't personally think Evolution could ever effectively argue against Intelligent Design (assuming it would even want to) unless it could fill all those gaps though. Intermediate theories like PE show some movement towards what I consider to be the beginnings of a healthy objectivity, if only because it shows someone is willing to stand up and say "you know what? We really can't say what happened" (even if they cave a moment later and spin out a "probable" explanation). A little humility can go along way, in my view.
I think it is analogous to where cosmologists are today. They have abandoned the attempt to restrict their models to the 4 perceivable dimensions to describe the fundamental universe of matter and energy. Perhaps someday even evolutionists will move past the mechanical chauvinism of the ancient world in their attempts to describe the transcendental universe of life and intelligence.
That's a quibble. The significant thing is that all the evidence supports the theory. There's just no way of avoiding that.
My personal OPINON is that Evolution is a part of Intelligent Design. I don't personally think Evolution could ever effectively argue against Intelligent Design (assuming it would even want to) unless it could fill all those gaps though.
If there is some designer behind evolution, he does his work in such a way that there's no trace of his activities. This designer operates no differently than if he didn't exist. So his existence makes no difference regarding the evidence we are given to examine. The evidence certainly seems to support evolution theory. The designer, if there is one, seems to be pure philosophical surplusage. If the gaps were all filled (they never could be), ID advocates would merely claim that the designer did a really neat job. As I said earlier, there is no way to disprove ID. That's why it's not regarded as science.
Intermediate theories like PE show some movement towards what I consider to be the beginnings of a healthy objectivity, if only because it shows someone is willing to stand up and say "you know what? We really can't say what happened" (even if they cave a moment later and spin out a "probable" explanation). A little humility can go along way, in my view.
PE is not an intermediate theory. It's evolution. Darwin himself pointed out that the rate of speciation was variable, with long periods of stasis, sometimes followed by (geologically) rapid changes. If the mutated group were geographically isolated from their parent stock, they would, after becoming a somewhat different species, start to spread out to new areas, and they would then appear in the fossil record as if they were suddenly new. This makes a lot of sense. But it's evolution, not anything else.
I think it is analogous to where cosmologists are today. They have abandoned the attempt to restrict their models to the 4 perceivable dimensions to describe the fundamental universe of matter and energy.
I don't see the analogy at all.
Perhaps someday even evolutionists will move past the mechanical chauvinism of the ancient world in their attempts to describe the transcendental universe of life and intelligence.
Perhaps. But they'll probably go where the evidence leads them.
Many people do, and I suppose they would all deny it. Everyone has what he truly believes is the one true way to understand scripture. In any event, Douglas won the election. His opinions were apparently widly held. As I said, racism didn't begin with Darwin. You really ought to drop that argument.
In any event, once life exists, however it happens, evolution then begins.
Does it continue at the same RATE as in the past?
It seems to me, that whatever drives evolution, it would still be going on today.
If this is so, then there should be all kinds of tumors or growths on MANY creatures, that appear to have no function: yet, as all the needed changes aren't in place yet. [This would corespond to the SLOW change rate side of the E theory: on our way to building an eye, for example]
Are these types of things found??
On the FAST rate of change side of the E theory, we should be finding (at least occasionally) creatures with completely foreign (to their genus) parts that have never been seen before. (Conjoined and extra head parts in humans do NOT fit this category: Do they??) Do we find creatures like this?? [What good are those extra eyes that spiders have?
What makes you think this is part of evolutionary theory?
Actually, although we never bring it up unless someone on your side of the debate raises this issue, Hitler was a creationist:
For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.Source: Book 2, Chapter 10, Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
-- Adolph Hitler, creationist
| If that's so, then HOW did each separate specie we see today ever get to be so robust and strong, if they TOO started with just a few individuals?? What makes you think this is part of evolutionary theory? |
Extremely doubtful. What is not in doubt, however, is how successful he was at duping people (apparently he hasn't lost his touch) and lying.
=========================================
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result".
(Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)
========================================
"I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude... The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers... And I regard the maintenance of peace in Europe as especially desirable and at the same time secured, if France and Germany, on the basis of equal sharing of natural human rights, arrive at a real inner understanding... The young Germany, that is led by me and that finds its expression in the National Socialist Movement, has only the most heartfelt desire for an understanding with other European nations."
=========================================
From here:
Adolf Hitler - Christian, Atheist, or Neither?
Here's more:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains,"
~Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
Sorry to disappoint.
And what great philosopher compiled THAT statistic?
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.