David,
Von Braun, quite obviously, was not a biologist. I mention him as one preeminent scientist of the 20th Century, first raising his name when Oliver said something to the effect that faith was out of place in the space age.

“The V-2 was the world’s first operational guided ballistic missile – a technical coup achieved under von Braun’s direction. To achieve this, his team had to make significant progress in understanding aerodynamics, rocket propulsion, and guidance systems.
Although von Braun at first supported the German war effort, he soon became disenchanted with Hitler’s policies and war aims. As a Christian and a creationist, he could not accept Hitler’s racial theories, and soon began to voice opposition against his policies, especially the war. Even before this, Hitler’s suspicions of von Braun, and the German government’s interference with his programs, delayed the development of the V-2.
... When, beginning in September 1944, thousands of V-2 rockets were launched in attacks on the civilian populations of London, Paris, and elsewhere, von Braun objected. As a result, he and his top aides were jailed. Just before the war ended, he was released because Hitler realized that without him, the program could not progress. However, von Braun soon fled Peenmünde with his entire team and their families – some 5,000 people – and surrendered to the Americans in the spring of 1945.
... With great devotion for thirty-five years he pursued the idea of building rockets for space travel. Although early in his career he built weapons rockets, he did so only because he realized this was the only way that he could obtain the support required to develop the technology and hardware required for his dream – a space-exploration program.” Dr. Jerry Bergman.

“One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. … 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.” von Braun, 1973.

david f makes interesting comment on von Braun – a ‘converted to, born-again Christian’. Braun’s liaison with the ardent right-wing Walt Disney is also interesting. In 1955, Disneyland became a milestone in the exploitation of the human imagination - an environment where people enjoy being manipulated. Visitors to this experimental theme park happily indulged in artificial cheerfulness that was comfortable, reassuring and very well operated. Disney, an early sympathizer of the American Nazi movement and a main figure in McCarthyism's Hollywood witch-hunt, developed a model of experimental psychological totalitarianism where subjects gladly settle for containment in an artificial illusion of power and autonomy. Such also was the world of von Braun.

Darwin was able to express something well-beyond ID (or the 'born-again' purely simplistic) - "We may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection." Charles Darwin, drawing on his Cambridge theological education, was capable of wrestling with the issues at the deepest level. "We are here for a reason after all, even though that reason lies in the mechanics of engineering rather than in the volition of a deity." – Darwin. I’d say this is illustrative of a ‘faith’ without presumption, or arrogance.

Dan,

<<I mention [von Braun] as one preeminent scientist of the 20th Century, first raising his name when Oliver said something to the effect that faith was out of place in the space age.>>

Yes, but the problem is that you continued to use von Braun for the Argument from Authority fallacy because you realised, after it was explained to yourself, that it was unreasonable to compare the founders of modern science with today’s Creationists.

So you were still repeating a discredited argument - just a different one, because I had explained several times that the Argument from Authority is a fallacious argument since it doesn’t matter who believes what, only why they believe it.

You’re 1973 quote from von Braun only helps to confirm that Oliver’s point was correct, because it was merely a subjective feeling of von Braun’s, and science can only work with objectiveness. Von Braun’s statement was also just an ‘argument from incredulity’ and an ‘argument from ignorance’, which as I’ve pointed out many times before, are just fallacies.

Remember too that complexity (or “intricacies” as von Braun has put it) does not imply design. In design, it would only imply sloppiness or necessity, and a God would be neither sloppy, nor would they find it necessary to make things so complex (and look as though everything occurred naturally) when they could simply sprinkle a little magic.

I had also asked earlier that you describe what a non-designed object looks like if you are going to continue with the design argument. Until you do, you are only making a claim that has already been discredited.

Also, after my post above shows such brazen attempts to deceive, why should we have any reason to trust Dr. Jerry Bergman’s claims?

From you quotes: “As a Christian and a creationist, [von Braun] could not accept Hitler’s racial theories...”

If Creationists are so against those theories of Hitler’s, then why do they continue perpetuate ignorance buy spreading misinformation - about evolution and what Darwin believed in regards to eugenics - that potentially ignites similar sentiments from ignorant people?

AJ Philips,
>> God would be neither sloppy, nor would they find it necessary to make things so complex (and look as though everything occurred naturally) when they could simply sprinkle a little magic.<<

You have your reasons for rejecting the idea of a God who is the cause and purpose of everything that is. However, this question (that you are not the only one to pose) - why did God need 13.7 billion years of evolution to create me, making it look as if I occurred naturally, when he could simply use a little magic - is hollow.

Since nobody else has created self-conscious beings like you and I (and who knows what else will self-consciousness evolve into) from a “nothing” (or a primordial chaos or how one interprets nothing) without needing 13.7 billion years of evolution (or even a whole multi-verse, if that is the case) you cannot call the “technology” of evolution unnecessarily complex, when magic would have sufficed.

This is not unlike the question like why did it take Western civilisation almost a millennium of “Dark Ages” to arrive at standards of science and technology that we enjoy today, when no other civilisation did it. Or like you can criticise a TV manufacturer if he makes only CRT screens when flat screens are much better, but you could not thirty years ago.

George,

Thanks for your response, but I disagree entirely.

We don’t need to have ever created self-conscious beings ourselves to know whether or not a God could have done it instantaneously, or with magic, because a God by its very definition has unlimited power, and thus a God who has to create something over time like we have to, is obviously not a God.

So, I think your ‘Western civilisation’ and ‘Television’ analogies are flawed, because you’re comparing an omnipotent being with us mere Humans.

Us Humans have to acquire technology, and the civilisations that we’ve developed, over time because we’re not all-knowing. An omnipotent God is.

<<... you cannot call the “technology” of evolution unnecessarily complex...>>

I never called (or even implied that) evolution was “unnecessarily complex” (remember, I was responding to a Creationist who doesn’t accept evolution to begin with), I was referring to life as we know it now and the intricate mechanics of it (that goes for the entire universe/multiverse too). Evolution, on the surface, is an astoundingly simple process.

I also think your use of the word “technology” in regards to evolution is inaccurate, because technology is the practical application of science, and a process that we know was guided by natural selection (emphasis on the word ”natural”) obviously has had no “practical” (i.e. hands-on) guidance.

But if you want to assert that God was the guiding force behind nature, then that’s fine with me. I don’t accept it though. I find it more useful to deal with practical knowledge rather than speculation and assertions.

But my point (to Dan) that complexity does not imply design, still stands. It is the ultimate Argument from Incredulity.

Simplicity is one of the main objectives of the kind of design we know, and I don't see why it would be any different for a God, unless they had some sort of ulterior motive to confuse or perhaps even deceive.

Surely simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I can't see the logic in putting human constraints on a putative supreme being. Such a being might regard our universe as no more than a Petri dish; a minor experiment taking mere moments of His time.
What is of far more interest to me is how would such a being interact with minuscule individuals such as ourselves.
Personally, I find the historical evidence less than compelling.