The Discovery Institute has been going Eclipse Crazy

I've been reading their 'coverage' of the upcoming Solar Eclipse and it's been very entertaining.  While their posts start out OK, they quickly have to being a Creationist spin to the party, but not much of it.  That's the funny part.  All of these posts are over at their pseudo-blog site, Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV).

• The Great American Total Solar Eclipse of 2017: They say this:
  "Oh yes, we will also cover the intelligent design aspects of solar eclipses!"
• Great American Eclipse: A Teachable Moment:  Lists 10 things about eclipses, all from their 'design' perspective.  Reading this led me to believe they will be working in their 'Privileged Planet' nonsense.  You remember how they tried to explain that the formation of the solar system and the position of Earth was done so that life could survive, well after it was first created by one of their deities.  Bet they interview Guillermo Gonzales, unless he's cowering under a desk somewhere because of the:
  ". . . total solar eclipses are fearsome and awesome phenomena . . ."

Now here is where I got a little confused.  You see EnV tags all their posts, and while these first two tags are "Intelligent Design", the later Eclipse stories are tagged as "Physics, Earth, and Space".  Here's a screenshot:

So are they reneging on their promise to thrill us all with their Intelligent Design perspective on the eclipse?  I guess we shall see.  

• Recalling the 1979 Total Eclipse:  Is a written memory of an eclipse witness.  Nothing design worthy, but I can see why the DI liked it, I mean they like anything that acknowledges a deity, and this ended with:
"We blinked in the light It was as though an enormous, loping god in the sky had reached down and slapped the earth’s face."So that reference alone made this post 'design-worthy'.
• Eclipse Coincidences: They list a few things that sound suspiciously like facts, like the distance to the Moon, how the Moon is receding from the Earth, how over the course of time the Sum will expand . . . we're talking millions of years here.  The DI claims that the 'coincidental' Moon moving away and Sun getting bigger will let us enjoy perfect eclipses for a long, long time.  Then they add:
  "Are these just coincidences, or do they point to intention and design? How could observers on earth be linked to total solar eclipses? Stay tuned and follow our eclipse series for answers."A 'perfect eclipse' is one only visible from Earth because the sun and the moon are a 'perfect' fit.  Of course, by the wording, you know what they believe.  They very idea of a coincidence is an anathema to them.  It has to be intention and design!
• Solar Eclipses Still Inspire Science: And here we have it, the whole "Privileged Planet" nonsense.  Yes, things exist, but trying to rationalize they exist because one deity intended for them to happen is not science.  They offer no support other than supposition, no evidence other than the acknowledgement that things exist.  They cannot accept natural explanations, so they have to force reality into a mold that demands the existence of and very specific actions by a deity.  I'm sure it will get mentioned again, ad nauseum!  They end it with this quote from the film:
  "Our argument suggests something completely different. It suggests that the universe was intended, that the universe exists for a purpose, and that purpose isn’t simply for beings like us to exist, but for us to extend ourselves beyond our small and parochial home: to view the universe at large, to discover the universe, and to consider whether, perhaps, that universe points beyond itself."
  Isn't that dead horse glue yet?  No!  Well. let's beat it some more.
• To Go, or Not to Go (See the Eclipse)? That Is the Question:  Well, it's a question, not 'the' question.  I, for one, will not be going anywhere.  I'll get a small partial eclipse here in Ohio and will see the shadow from my office window.  If I were closer to the total eclipse, it might be worth a drive, but I have plans for my vacation days that don't include an 8 or so hour drive to see a two minute event that will be covered over and over again by the news.  Partial eclipse is just going to have to be enough.  Nothing special about this post.  Anyone who has planned a trip anywhere for any purpose knows about dealing with the logistics, including lodging, meals, traffic, and weather.  I do have to wonder if the eclipse is some message from a deity, shouldn't the weather be perfectly clear all along its path?  The message gets a little lost if you can't see much of it.  You want to prove the hand of a deity, how about a total solar eclipse around the entire world all at the same time!  Now that might get a few converts.
• The Best Solar Eclipses:  Best?  By what standard?  The DI seems to think eclipses anywhere but here aren't very special because of the size differences between the Sun and the object casting the shadow.  Other planets have total solar eclipses as well, in fact Jupiter, with it's 60+ moon can have multiple ones on the same day (NASA has pictures).  'Best' is an arbitrary distinction that doesn't mean much.  We even have pictures of a solar eclipse from Mars, the Curiosity Rover sent us the pics.  This 'best' things sounds like something that hamster-haired serial lying misogynist would say "We get the best solar eclipses in the solar system, by far!"  Makes as much sense as anything he has said.
• Don’t Miss the Solar Eclipse! (Unless You Are Ill, or Trapped in a Dungeon): Here's a quote:
  "Have you noticed the odd coincidence? The Moon and the Sun aren’t much alike. Yes, they’re spherical. But one is a giant ball of gas and plasma. The other is a much smaller rock. And yet, during a total eclipse, they mark off the same space in our sky. They match. That’s because the Sun is about four hundred times larger than our Moon, but also about four hundred times farther away."
  Gee, they are round and for a brief period of time they pass each other in line with the Earth.  So they 'match'?  Really?  Now if the math seems off to you, the DI is talking about diameter, not any other measurement.  Area or Volume and the Moon is pretty much insignificant when compared to the Sun.  The DI thinks it's special simply because it will block out much of the Sun's body.  But that will be changing, remember the Moon is moving away form the Earth and in about 600 million years, solar eclipses will look very different.  In a few billion years the sun will be expanding, and eclipses, if we have a moon then at all, will be very, very different by then.
• Solar Eclipses and Life:
  "Since there appears to be a physical basis for the solar eclipse coincidences, does this not remove the need for a design explanation? Not at all! It seems surprising on the chance hypothesis that the universe would be setup in a way that the most habitable locations would also be the best places to observe total solar eclipses. But this makes sense on the hypothesis that the universe is designed so that observers can enjoy total solar eclipses.
  Thus, solar eclipses became the first example of the Privileged Planet thesis (published in book form in 2004), that the universe is designed for scientific observation and discovery."
  The fact that solar eclipses occur, and that because they occur here and are visible to humans is an example of the Privileged Plant Thesis?  The link takes you to the Privileged Planet website where they hawk the book.  So what is this thesis?  For a change, at least, they are admitting it's a thesis, which is nothing more than a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.  Which simply means more conjecture and wishful thinking, not proof, not empirical support, but just a statement that would like someone else to support -- because in the 13 years since publication, nothing has actually supported it.

OK, so in all their posts, and I am sure there will be more before the 21st, there is very little design perspective in their 'coverage' of the upcoming eclipse.  It's more like they are using a natural event to push their own agenda, while dressing it up to sound like they know and understand real science.

I am reminded of a scene in an old movie, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.  The Bing Crosby one from 1949.  He's about the be hung and remembers that an eclipse was going to happen right then and there.  So he plays up the fear as the sun disappears and wins the day, and eventually the fair maiden -- well sort of.  Apparently that story was taken from a real-life example of none-other-than Christopher Columbus on his 4th voyage.

Even Answer in Genesis is getting into the act with a bunch of posts of their own.  Before you explore that, you might read this one from 2015.  "Watch the Lunar Eclipse from the Creation Museum"  Here's a quote:

"It’s your last opportunity to see a total lunar eclipse from North America until 2018. And we want to invite you to watch the whole thing with us at the Creation Museum! On September 27, around 9:07 PM, we’ll see the moon start to slip into the moon’s shadow and it will be completely hidden a few hours later."

So back in 2015 there was a Lunar eclipse and the Creation pseudo-museum threw a party.  I have to guess it wasn't a big hit because they aren't holding an event this time around.  Granted you wouldn't get to see the total solar eclipse at the pseudo-museum, but you would get a decent partial one.

Since using eclipses' is a time-honored tradition both in movies and real life, I am surprised little kennie ham isn't selling tickets.The one in 2015 was $16 a person, imagine what he could charge today?

Is the Universe an Awful Waste of Space?

You know the Discovery Institute can pretty much take anything and turn it into a binary set, either it supports Intelligent Design (ID) or it doesn't support ID.  Case in point this little missive from one of my favorite ID sources, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer and the DI site: Evolution 'News' and Views (EnV) 'Objection to Intelligent Design -- Universe Is Too Big, with Too Much "Wasted Space"'.

The DI has taken an old comment of Carl Sagan's and tried to turn it into a strawman critique of ID and then they demolish the strawman and claim another victory for ID.  The original quote: 

"The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space." (Carl Sagan: Contact)

It was from Sagan's book 'Contact' and also used in the movie of the same name. It is an interesting thing to say and something that has provoked a lot of thought.  Now, did Sagan state it as an argument against God?  Not that I recall, but I might have to re-read Contact to make sure.  But in all honesty, whether you want to adhere to the Creationist explanations or the scientific explanations, if we are the only life in the universe, it is pretty wasteful, isn't it?

Of course, waste is an opinion, a point of view, right?  Think about an 8 oz glass with 4 oz of wine.  To some the glass is half-empty, to some others it's half-full.  To an engineer, it's too much glass and to a very good friend of mine, it's not nearly enough wine.  So whether or not you consider the entire Universe wasted space is pretty much an opinion, one that I happen to agree with, but it's still an opinion. 

But before going any deeper, I would like to point something else out, something the DI likes to pretend isn't important.  Yes, my single favorite topic when discussing the DI, their religion.  The original article klingy is referencing included this quote, one he didn't use for some reason:

"It’s a strange question, isn’t it? Chances are it’s never even occurred to you. But I like it anyway, not because it’s an especially profound thing to ask, but because it leads to some really encouraging thoughts about God’s greatness, His power, His glory — which He wants to share with us all, even though He doesn’t have to. God can afford that, too."

In fact, the article mentions God 15 times in a very short article.  The source is a website called 'The Stream', which, if you haven't guessed, is a faith-based news site.  Yes, if the DI, and their pet version of Creationism is not a religious proposition, why is klingy using an article that is very specific about its intent, and it's certainly not science.  So, as usual, klingy, and the DI, use religion and religious sources of information, but any religious connotation is supposed to be ignored?

OK, off my favorite soapbox for now.  You know me, I'll probably mention it again.  What I do find interesting is that klingy seems to go out of his way to avoid using the word 'God'.  Does he think he's fooling anyone?  Seriously?

OK, back to klingy's article, which is nothing new, like this:

"this argument points to the unique fitness of the universe and of our planet for upright bipeds like ourselves. The whole thing appears set up for us, and only for us."

Ah yes, the privileged planet argument, also frequently put forth by the . . . DI.  Yes, this is nothing more than a restatement of a premise they have yet to support with anything . . . anything at all.

What I don't get is how they don't realize how self-limiting this argument is, especially when you consider how little of the Universe we have explored yet.  The instance we do discovery any form of life, especially one very different to us, this whole argument is flushed.  In my opinion this argument is nothing but an expanded God-Of-The-Gaps argument.  Think about it.  What justification do they make with this argument?  That we have yet to discovery life anywhere else, in other words . . . a gap.  But like all gap arguments, as soon as we learn something new about the subject, it's done.  To an ancient Greek, Apollo might have been the answer, but it's done.  To close-minds like kennie ham, Creationism is responsible for everything . . . aside from a cultural/political argument, it's done!  That's what will happen to the whole privileged planet argument.

I'm sure Creationists will survive, they will simply evolve new arguments, after all, isn't Intelligent Design an evolution of the Creation Science argument?  Nothing new, just a change to try and make it sound less religious.  It hasn't worked well, but it is an evolution, much as they probably hate that being pointed out.

Then klingy does something pretty common for the DI and their mouthpieces.  He tries to claim any opposition is using tactics that, in reality, the DI is using.  Look at this:

"ID critics often end up playing the role of naïve theologian: What they "seem to want is a metric with The Human Body as God Would (or Should) Have Made It at one end of the measuring stick."

Yes, some ID critics have looked at the human body and determined that if the human body was designed by a deity, that deity is a lousy designer.  But who is really telling God what he/she did or did not do?

Isn't that what Creationists do every day?  Look at the DI, or any of the Creationists groups.  They repeatedly say "An Intelligent Designer/God Did This!" and offer no actual support, just the usual conjecture and wishful thinking.  At least when ID is criticized, the rationale for the criticism is offered so you can understand it. 

Even back to the original argument, is the Universe mostly wasted space?  I don't know . . . yet.  But one day we will know more and more.  It we are the only life that exists, or that ever or will ever exist, then I will consider it a huge waste of space, regardless of what religious rationalization the DI wants to spin on it.