That is understandable. 
Do you know the non-design explanations that have been offered for this?
I tend to resolve this thusly:
-
Use the term “evolutionary science.”
-
Emphasize that evolutionary science extended beyond just “darwinism” a long time ago, and that it doesn’t rule out God’s action within or alongside natural processes.
-
Where-ever possible, narrow down to the relevant focused concept I’m discussing, for example use “common descent” where common descent will do.
I agree with @glipsnort that the “Extended Synthesis” has a lot of baggage as a term and its best to avoid it.
1 Like
Good Point! Send me your favorite link. Ideally, please point out (with timeframes on the presentation) on what convinces you most, that Nobody got the job done. Thanks!
I’m not “convinced” by any theory because the question is far more interesting and complex as you study it more. This article is a good read about how it is being looked at:
The article referred to here, interestingly, proposes a weak anthropic principle, tied to the origin of life:
The nearly equal lunar and solar angular sizes as subtended at the Earth is generally regarded as a coincidence. This is, however, an incidental consequence of the tidal forces from these bodies being comparable. Comparable magnitudes implies strong temporal modulation, as the forcing frequencies are nearly but not precisely equal. We suggest that on the basis of palaeogeographic reconstructions, in the Devonian period, when the first tetrapods appeared on land, a large tidal range would accompany these modulated tides. This would have been conducive to the formation of a network of isolated tidal pools, lending support to A. S. Romer’s classic idea that the evaporation of shallow pools was an evolutionary impetus for the development of chiridian limbs in aquatic tetrapodomorphs. Romer saw this as the reason for the existence of limbs, but strong selection pressure for terrestrial navigation would have been present even if the limbs were aquatic in origin. Since even a modest difference in the Moon’s angular size relative to the Sun’s would lead to a qualitatively different tidal modulation, the fact that we live on a planet with a Sun and Moon of close apparent size is not entirely coincidental: it may have an anthropic basis.
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/470/2168/20140263
Before you dismiss that idea, it would also imply a strong fine tuning in the moon required or life.
But is the correct answer? I’m not sure. In the end, I’m left with the question, not a neat and tidy answer. Certainly God created all things, including the moon. But the question is how? And why? Those questions are deep, and I don’t think we know the answer yet.
Just looked at the first one, and the related video, will review the others later.
-
Totally Cool. Thanks much!
-
Thanks for “bringing it down, from the High Shelf”.
-
I appreciate the Small Bites. Occasionaly, I get a “homework” assignment from my atheist friends…
One time, I had to read the entire Transcript from the 1920’s Scopes Monkey Trial… pretty boring, but Good news in there from my perspective. -
So, just so you know where I am coming from… I accept 3.5 Billion years for the Earth age.
But as I have said before, if the Skeptics want 3.5 Billion (Squared), they can have it, no problem. -
Now, back to Moon. Actually I was aware of this, I have read much of Hugh Ross books/materials/website/seminars,
and I actually have talked to him, multiple times (face to face). Once, again my interactions with these people don’t mean squat, it just shows that I have an interest in the subject.
I have also paid my own money, to bring skeptics to his talks, and have offered (and some times they have accepted) to buy Hugh Ross materials for them.
Once again, it does not mean squat, that I am willing to pay my Money, for my Skeptics friends, I would say it is “evidence” that at a “popular Level”, I have been engaged. -
You have probably already read… “The Priviledged Planet”, but
What the heck, here is my question for you…
Let’s assume that there are quite a few people out there, that think Somebody was involved in this short clip.
If You had to guess, what They are Impressed with, what do you think They would say?
I am sure you are busy, so when you can squeeze it in, would love to hear if you are going with Somebody, or Nobody…
But just as interesting to me, would be what You think, They would say on this.
Have a good one, I am going to start watching the first Alien movie with my kids, they have never seen it!
I know the clip is 8 mins, but at least I am not asking you to comment on a 2 hour debate!
Thanks for your time!
https://youtu.be/-mdjM4-gRGg
Let’s say that Somebody was involved. And…??? What baffles me is - what is it supposed to be evidence of, what was the point, and if there was one, why is it not mentioned in any discussion of the greater and lessor lights in the Bible? Is there some hidden code?
I presume that you feel that the exact coincidence of apparent size must mean something. But eclipses have been held to herald all sorts of hokey signs and portends that I doubt anyone now would support.
The are cool though, and welcome to the forum. My picture of the 2017 totality:
1 Like
I hear you. I was in Carbondale, IL for the 2017…, Wonderful stuff. I can give you my take on your questions, but I want @swamidass and @RonSewell. Your takes on my question here first. I’ve got lots of Homework that Josh has given me, I am thru the first 2 links that he sent. Here is what I would consider an “easy 8 min assignment” for you!
- What the heck, here is my question for you…
Let’s assume that there are quite a few people out there, that think Somebody was involved in this short clip.
If You had to guess, what They are Impressed with, what do you think They would say?
I am sure you are busy, so when you can squeeze it in, would love to hear if you are going with Somebody, or Nobody…
But just as interesting to me, would be what YOU THINK, THEY would say on this.
Have a good one, I am going to start watching the first Alien movie with my kids, they have never seen it!
I know the clip is 8 mins, but at least I am not asking you to comment on a 2 hour debate!
Thanks for your time!
https://youtu.be/-mdjM4-gRGg
Sounds good. Thanks for the feedback!
If the moon were exactly 333,333 km distant, what would be the odds of that? Or matched your old clunkers odometer? Or was 451,989.44 km distant? Within the bounds of orbital mechanics, any exact distance to the moon is not really less likely than any other distance, so 384 thousand kilometers cannot be ruled out as a result of random chance. Nor can it be ruled out that God wanted it there - but if He did, He did not say why.
With regards to the Privileged Planet video clip, there was not a lot there that set my hair on fire or anything. I read the book some years back and found it interesting enough; I have no objection to the Earth being a pretty special place. Nor do I object to the idea that the moon may have a plausible role in stabilizing the Earth’s celestial dynamics.
There is some discussion in the video concerning the usefulness of solar eclipses for discovery, such as study of the Sun’s atmosphere and the early confirmation of relativity. If the inference is that God’s intention was to enable 20th century science, I find that just odd. Why the ignorance for most of the history of civilization? How much difference has it really made to our present state of knowledge? - relativity and solar composition would have been eventually sorted out, and likely in short enough order. Why would our state of understanding of the solar atmosphere matter to God anyways. And if God was attempting to educate the human race as to nature, why do so many of the household of faith profoundly reject science? I realize that an old earth does not trouble you, but there are a lot of Christians who cannot square that with their faith.
Underlying the book and the video, it is transparent that there is some pitch to the fine tuning argument and the rare earth hypothesis as an apologetic. While those cosmological arguments are consistent with teleology in creation, the response to those presentations are personal and subjective, and perhaps more spiritually than logically compelled. More of a compass than a map. Both have been much discussed in prior threads in this forum, so I would like to leave it at that and wish you good luck on your travels.
3 Likes
Thanks for the update and your analysis. Since @Cootsona, wanted the “Why” people are thinking the way they are thinking, it makes sense for you and @swamidass to let me know, what You Think, is pushing me to Somebody, and not Nobody. I will give Josh, and other folks the opportunity to let me know (Why would Mark think Somebody… for Perfect Eclipse). It will be interesting to see your responses!
The notion that Earth is uniquely designed for life is, from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, reversed.
Earth is not (seen to be) as it is for the sake of life, life is (seen to be) as it is because it evolved on Earth.
Life that evolved elsewhere would be well adapted to that biosphere, not to Earth. But if it became conscious, it would likely marvel at how miraculously its planet fitted it.
8 Likes
Maybe it’s a repeated typo, but I think you need to add another billion years to Earth’s age. Or maybe you just don’t find evidence for the pre-Eoarchaean period compelling?