[bondserv]

Ping me to the moon!!

[js1138]

The rockets go up,
Who cares where they come down;
That's not my department,
Says Werner von Braun.

[boris]

"I aim for the stars but sometimes I hit London."

[Dataman]

he was also a Christian and creationist.

He couldn't have been a creationist, bondserv, because the FRevos tell us that all creationists are idiots. And he couldn't have been a scientist because all scientists believe in evolution. He must have been just another raving fundamentalist from Arkansas.

[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

[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).

[Oztrich Boy]

“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.

And yet, most 12 year old boys used to do it.

[tortoise]

Isn't using W. Von Braun as a model of a creationist scientist a rather blatant and obvious appeal to improper authority?

That would be like asking me my opinions on cosmology (or rocket science), since I am a nominally brilliant scientist in my own field. I may have a detailed opinion on cosmology, but it isn't worth much more than the opinion of Joe Moron down the street because I don't have any particular expertise in cosmology. Being smart isn't enough, you also have to have detailed technical knowledge in the field of question as well. Being scientifically smart doesn't seamlessly translate across fields. And history is replete with brilliant scientists and mathematicians who made fools of themselves by trying to cross over into fields in which they were technically incompetent (e.g. Penrose).

If W. Von Braun was a creationist, who cares? His specialty was rocket science, and he was completely clueless in many important fields. Being an expert in one area does not make you an expert in all areas. People so afflicted with Carl Sagan Syndrome eventually make asses of themselves sooner than later.

[Professional Engineer]

PING