Oh the hypocrisy...ROTFL

ROTFL LOL GMWAS

O(pen) W(ide) ->

Like this guy?

Dear Mr. Grose [CA State Board of Education]:

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

Iky! You've Godwined yourself!

Not true. Ask the JIOA.

Being an advocate of science does not rule out belief in God Who created the universe. (Also see Wernher von Braun's letter to the California State Board of Education.) Nor does unbelief in a personal God and Saviour.



— C. Seelig, Helle Zeit—Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zuürich, 1956), p.72, quoted in Jammer, p. 124.




— From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.

But planned by who? The Christian God or Zeus or Zoroaster or Ra or....?

And since it's unconstitutional to promote one faith over another, it's not gonna get taught anyway. No matter what von Braun or those other guys think about it.

Von Braun reminds me of "The Rocket Boys". Ever see it? Wonderful movie.

What difference does that make scientifically?



See? No mention of a specific "who".

And speaking of faith...it takes faith to believe that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were NOT created by a designing intelligence.

THAT faith is being taught/promoted "over" faith in intelligent design.

Just the fact that there is some intelligent "who" out there means that religion enters the picture. How can one teach intelligent design without getting into talk about gods/goddesses? I don't think it's possible. While some scientists are men of faith, the hypothesis can't be taught in schools because of that god/goddess issue being central to the hypothesis.

And, even if it was being taught, since it is simply a hypothesis, it would have to be taught as such. There has been no scientific evidence to advance intelligent design to the theory stage and, thus, it can't accurately be called a theory. And you can bet the religious community would balk at intelligent design not being given theory status and, thus, being taught at a different level than Darwin's theory, even though they clearly don't understand what theory means in the scientific mileau. It would be a whole other can of worms.

I really don't understand the fear of Darwin's theory anyway. A person of faith might very reasonably say that their god has designed evolution. But it's still best to leave that out of the classroom.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with religions being taught in the classroom as long as they are taught on the same level, not one over another, as part of a cultural studies and/or comparative religion class.