Solar Eclipses: Design or Coincidence?
This is a rebuttal to Live Science’s article, “Why Total Solar Eclipses Are Total Coincidences,” so that readers can make up their own minds.
Many Americans are planning their summer vacations around the total solar eclipse on August 21, the first one for Americans in 99 years. The line of totality crosses from Oregon to South Carolina, providing millions of Americans their first chance to see one of the grandest spectacles in nature. What is the significance of total eclipses that have fascinated humans for thousands of years?
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. Rather than just declare a position as fact and be done with it, as Metcalfe does, we give both sides. Go ahead; start by reading his article, then come back and read our rebuttal.
Metcalfe uses the word “coincidence” 9 times in his article, as if by repetition he will make his point. He also rests his case on the authority of experts he chooses to quote. Although not openly aimed at intelligent design advocates, Metcalfe’s focus and repetition of the word coincidence seems targeted to nudge his readers away from any thoughts that our planet was designed for human life.
It’s a beautiful coincidence — life has been on Earth for about 400 million years, and we’re living in this little window of time where this is happening, which is pretty amazing.
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. Quoting UK astronomer Mark Gallaway, he makes this concession:
“It’s a beautiful coincidence — life has been on Earth for about 400 million years, and we’re living in this little window of time where this is happening, which is pretty amazing,” Gallaway told Live Science.
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.
In the book and film The Privileged Planet, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez shares his experience watching his first total eclipse, and how it led him to question the view that it is purely coincidental (see the whole film on YouTube). He decided to calculate all the shadows of all the planets and moons in the solar system to see if any other combination of bodies produces a perfect total eclipse. Beside Earth, he only found one: the moon Prometheus at Saturn. There are several problems with that eclipse, though: it would only last half a second, and Saturn has no solid platform from which to view it. 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.”
That fact alone is not enough to rule out the coincidence view, but it started Gonzalez and his friend Jay Richards down a sequence of inquiries about Earth that showed it to be ideally located for making scientific discoveries. It orbits the right star, has the right atmosphere, is located in the right position in the galaxy, and much more. Some of these factors are detailed in the film, and more in the book. Evaluating the significance of eclipses, therefore, needs to be considered not in isolation, but in context of twenty or more other coincidences about our planet that vastly decrease the probability of them all occurring simultaneously on one planet. The combination of factors could well be unique in the universe, even with the vast number of stars astronomers count.
Added to the work of Gonzalez and Richards, the findings of Dr Michael Denton should be considered in his videos Privileged Species and Fire-Maker. 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.
In sum, it is not possible to disprove the coincidence view by considering solar eclipses in isolation, but when considered in context with all the other coincidences that converge to make human life possible on this one planet, the intelligent position should be taken seriously. We think Metcalfe could have done a much better job for his readers by considering these arguments and not dismissing the design view by fiat. Here at CEH, we take Darwin’s position (ironically): “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” We challenge Live Science to do that.
Now go to the path of totality if you can and don’t miss the big event on August 21st!