Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of our space program with NASA, wrote the following
letter to the California State board of Education on September 14, 1972.

Dear Mr. Grose: In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the
"Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory or 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 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?
 

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 without 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 a Designer.
Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and
yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities,
guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What
strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while
refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot con- ceive
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 acknowl- edging the "Case for Design" as a viable
scientific alternative to the current "Case for Chance" lies in the inconceiv-
ability, 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 uni- verse, 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. 

With kindest regards.

sincerely,

Wernher von Braun