| Introduction On September 14,
1972, the following letter written by Wernher von Braun was read to the California State
Board of Education by Dr. John Ford.
Dear Mr. Grose:
In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for
DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory for 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 invoking 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 around 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 it 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 of 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 with 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 an electron?
The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its
effects that we us it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night
skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some
physicists accept the inconceivable electron 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 happening by chance.
With kindest regards.
Sincerely,
(signed) Wernher von Braun
* * * * *
For many years now, we have been bombarded with an onslaught of information which is
geared to gain our acceptance of evolution as fact. Television programs, magazine
articles, and even school textbooks openly present the evolutionary hypothesis as the only
explanation available. In most cases evolution is presented as fact. It is not. Many
evidences clearly invalidate the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, these evidences are
often passed over and sometimes the information is suppressed, seldom reaching the public.
Many scientists have become disenchanted with the evolutionary hypothesis and are
seeking a better explanation of the scientific facts which are available to us. The
Creation Research Society is associated with nearly 450 scientists (all with advanced
degrees) who have noted the inadequacies of the evolutionary theory and are researching an
alternative position to the evolutionary premise. This alternative is found in a dynamic
and powerful Creator who created all things and set the laws of nature in motion in the
beginning.
Perhaps you feel that such men would be biased in their rejection of the evolutionary
explanations of origins, but again this is not the case. Having researched both sides of
the question, these men feel that creation is a more adequate explanation of the
observable scientific phenomena. In fact, many of them were evolutionists at one time and
have become creationists after learning about the shaky foundation upon which evolution is
based.
It is interesting to note that a few honest appraisals come from evolutionary
scientists themselves. One such individual, Dr. G. A. Kerkut of the Department of
Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton, has openly admitted some of the
unverifiable assumptions of the evolutionary theory. In his book Implications of
Evolution, Dr. Kerkut makes the following statements concerning the theory of
evolution:
There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of
evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the
seventh. These are as follows:
1. The first assumption is that
non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
2. The second assumption is that
spontaneous generation occurred only once.
The other assumptions all follow from the second one
3. The third assumption is that
viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
4. The fourth assumption is that
the protozoa gave rise to the metazoa.
5. The fifth assumption is that
the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. The sixth assumption is that
the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
7. The seventh assumption is that
within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles,
and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words,
i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock , and so on.
For the initial purposes of this discussion on evolution I shall consider that the
supporters of the theory of evolution hold that all these assumptions form the
"General Theory of Evolution."
The first point that I should make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are
not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has
occurred in the past. Thus though it may be possible to mimic some of these events under
present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken
place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take
place. Thus to change a present-day reptile into a mammal, though of great interest, would
not show the way in which the mammals did arise. Unfortunately we cannot bring about even
this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our
assumptions.
After a thorough discussion of each of these basic assumptions, showing them to be just
that - assumptions - this statement is his closing remark: ". . . there is the theory
that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came
from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the 'General Theory of Evolution' and
the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as
anything more than a working hypothesis."
Please note that a hypothesis is not a fact. For this reason we must question the
concept of evolution and consider an alternative - one that is based upon the Word of God.
To accomplish this, it is necessary to examine the Biblical record in order to determine
what God says He did and to establish the identity of the Creator.
|
