"At Live Science, Tom Metcalfe argues for the secular materialist view that total solar eclipses are purely coincidental. They may well be; nobody knows. However, there are aspects of the phenomenon that, considered within the context of other “coincidences” about our planet, deserve
more careful reflection than outright dismissal as products of blind chance.
Metcalfe agrees that total solar eclipses are special in the sense of their emotional impact on humans. They are beautiful and awe-inspiring, he agrees.
A look through the article shows five reasons for the coincidental view:
(1) the match is not exact, wavering between annular and beyond-total coverage;
(2) the match only existed for a brief time in the history of the earth;
(3) the obliquity of the moon’s orbit makes its shadow not touch the earth every time;
(4) advances in science brought about by eclipse observations would have happened anyway, and eclipses are no longer important to science;
(5) human psychology makes us think they are more significant than they really are.
The Cassini spacecraft found that Prometheus is potato-shaped, not circular, so not even it has perfect eclipses. Gonzalez commented about this “amazing coincidence: the one place that has observers is the one place that has the best eclipses.”
Denton lists additional coincidences that seem designed not just for simple life, but for human life. In combination, these factors make the “sheer coincidence” view highly suspect. Metcalfe should at least take these evidences seriously and not simply dismiss them by assertion.
What about Metcalfe’s objections to design? Even if the match is not exact, it is often very exact. The fact that it is so precise as to allow us to see the chromosphere and Bailey’s Beads is quite astonishing for a coincidence, even if it doesn’t occur that precisely every time.
As for its brief appearance in the history of the Earth, the point is that that time is now when humans walk the Earth: what Gallaway admitted is a “little window of time… which is pretty amazing.”
As for the obliquity of the moon’s orbit, the same rebuttal holds: the fact that exact total eclipses occur at all is the issue. How many lotteries does one have to win before conceding there’s more going on than luck? The advances in science, furthermore, have been significant (such as the discovery of helium and confirmation of Einstein’s theory of relativity), and continue to be significant to this day.
Eclipses have also played a major role in helping historians date key events in ancient history.
And for human psychology, well, great: we have the intelligence and emotions to enjoy these rare phenomena, and they only happen here. That’s the point. They’re not happening on Enceladus or Io where nobody lives." CEH
I went mourning without the sun:
Job 30:28
Metcalfe agrees that total solar eclipses are special in the sense of their emotional impact on humans. They are beautiful and awe-inspiring, he agrees.
A look through the article shows five reasons for the coincidental view:
(1) the match is not exact, wavering between annular and beyond-total coverage;
(2) the match only existed for a brief time in the history of the earth;
(3) the obliquity of the moon’s orbit makes its shadow not touch the earth every time;
(4) advances in science brought about by eclipse observations would have happened anyway, and eclipses are no longer important to science;
(5) human psychology makes us think they are more significant than they really are.
The Cassini spacecraft found that Prometheus is potato-shaped, not circular, so not even it has perfect eclipses. Gonzalez commented about this “amazing coincidence: the one place that has observers is the one place that has the best eclipses.”
Denton lists additional coincidences that seem designed not just for simple life, but for human life. In combination, these factors make the “sheer coincidence” view highly suspect. Metcalfe should at least take these evidences seriously and not simply dismiss them by assertion.
What about Metcalfe’s objections to design? Even if the match is not exact, it is often very exact. The fact that it is so precise as to allow us to see the chromosphere and Bailey’s Beads is quite astonishing for a coincidence, even if it doesn’t occur that precisely every time.
As for its brief appearance in the history of the Earth, the point is that that time is now when humans walk the Earth: what Gallaway admitted is a “little window of time… which is pretty amazing.”
As for the obliquity of the moon’s orbit, the same rebuttal holds: the fact that exact total eclipses occur at all is the issue. How many lotteries does one have to win before conceding there’s more going on than luck? The advances in science, furthermore, have been significant (such as the discovery of helium and confirmation of Einstein’s theory of relativity), and continue to be significant to this day.
Eclipses have also played a major role in helping historians date key events in ancient history.
And for human psychology, well, great: we have the intelligence and emotions to enjoy these rare phenomena, and they only happen here. That’s the point. They’re not happening on Enceladus or Io where nobody lives." CEH
I went mourning without the sun:
Job 30:28
