Home \ Online Books \ Jesus Christ Creator

Jesus Christ Creator

Jesus Christ Creator by Kelly L. Segraves

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.


(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.

Previous PageTable of ContentsNext Page