Why the Size of the Moon and the "Goldilocks" factors will be the only "proof" of God in Science

[quote=“My Purpose”]
This Topic is my way of researching the reason YEC’ers are so intent on trying to “find” scientific evidence in Genesis. At the same time, the EC (and BioLogians) seem so intent on finding the print of God in Science.
I find that both propositions require faith and are things that cannot be found in General Revelation except for the “Goldilocks Evidence”. [/quote]

With the “All American Solar Eclipse” coming on Monday, August 21, 2017, I began pondering the “Goldilocks Rules” and the “search for God in science” as proof of his existence. My understanding of that premise has changed since I joined BioLogos. The Size of the Moon being such a “perfect match” for the apparent size of the Sun, as viewed from earth, it is highly improbable that its formation and current orbital position is a “natural” phenomenon. As it is explained in Genesis, as “for signs and seasons”.

  • Science is a product of the Creation by God–General Revelation, therefore it cannot explain the why, only the how questions of existence.

  • The The Big Bang appears to the only scientific explanation for the Cosmos as explained in Genesis 1:1-3.

  • The Physical Cosmos as explained by Science, was defined by Jesus, in his exchange with Nicodemus in John 3:1-15 as the Seen.

  • The Spiritual Cosmos is explained by Jesus in the same passage, as the Unseen and is not a category that Science can investigate.

  • The Goldilocks Rules are the only manifestations in Science that we can point to as having the “imprint” of Special Revelation (being the thjs), though it is often explained as the "Anthropic Principle.

  • The Moon’s size as a perfect fit for Solar Eclipses, makes it a perfect match for the role an solar Eclipse plays to us as humans, and fits the Genesis account of the reason for “signs”. Therefore its formation is perfect for its function and cannot be considered a pure product of “Natural” phenomena.

Have at it!

Ray :sunglasses:

I disagree even with that. If anything, there is only room for concordism in Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:2 repeats the Ancient Egyptian idea that the earth was covered with a Dark Watery Chaos at the start of creation. An idea now known to be false. Water first appeared on earth millions of years after the formation of land. Saying that this is scientifically accurate also implies that Genesis 1:6-8 is, which mentions the waters again, even though it very clearly isn’t. Light existing before the sun (Genesis 1:3) also has parallels with Egyptian mythology, and is unscientific, since the sun causes daylight, it isn’t independent from it.


Yes, you’re correct. I should have omitted verse 2.

I Agree that Genesis 1-2 is a “Cosmic Temple” account, setting the stage for our relationship with God. It has no scientific value.

Ray :sunglasses:

1 Like

It would be just as improbable for the Moon to be 25% further out or 25% closer.

What we are really dealing with is pareidolia, the human ability to see associations where none exist. This is the same thing that leads people to see dragons in clouds or think that a certain penny is lucky. As it turns out, the human brain WANTS to create associations between things, and it will often produce false associations.

If we were truly looking for signs of intelligent design in the orbits of celestial bodies, I would tend to look for perfect Klemperer rosettes:

If we saw 5 to 10 planets, all with exactly the same mass, all moving about the Sun in the very same orbit with equal space between them, that would be something.

I don’t find that the eclipse, as wonderful as it was, is proof of God. Think about it: why would God let you fry your retinas by looking at something that proves him?

To be fair, you can stare at a total solar eclipse.

Aha! So God favors the Latter-Day Saints in Utah.

Or the Southern Baptists, depending on the time of day.


Of course, it is only the right size some of the time, as other times you get an annular eclipse. I guess that means what? Don’t think we want to go there, if you use the total eclipse as a measure of God’s intelligent design and proof of God.


Both authoritarian faiths, that don’t agree with each other.

Definitely not. Doesn’t make sense to both restore sight to the blind for some and fry the retinas of others.

Was thinking earlier, what happened to people before there were eclipse predictions and widespread knowledge of the risks?

Good question. In earliest times there was probably fear, panic, and hiding.

1 Like

…and wonder, awe, and amazement.

Our so-called “scientific world” has leeched [intended usage] the awe and wonder from much of what we see. When mechanisms are exposed, the wonder is lessened (much as a magician’s act is less fun to see when exposed). Science in its own way is exposing the the mechanisms that mask the feelings over a beautiful sunset when one knows it is caused by wildfire smoke, smog, or a volcano. We have to forget the causation and wonder at the result.

When I am suggesting the “proof” of God, I am asking about the unique properties of the Cosmos that are required for the propagation of human life. The size and orbit of the earth’s moon is a prerequisite for evolutionary development (tidal forces, weather patterns, geological development in the primordial earth after the earth/moon collision formation.) All of these resulted in the moon the way it is. Again, as is stated over in [Choosing to be Image Bearers](http://Thinking out loud…Choosing to be image-bearers), the wonder is in how things developed so that we are who we are to be relationship with our Elohim.

Ray :sunglasses:

1 Like

All make sense! What I was wondering more though is if a fair amount of people suffered long term eye damage. Maybe the first possibility above would have been better!

It does make you wonder. However, most early people were much more in tune with the cycles and positions of the heavenly bodies than we are today, and it may have been either no big deal, or they may have worried what would happen when the moon “hit” the sun. One of the shows did say it was a considered a bad omen in the ANE area, and they would put a proxy king on the throne until the next full moon, at which time the old king would resume the throne. It was proven to be a bad omen, because the proxy king then met his demise. Interesting if true.

Your choice of analogy is worth a discussion on its own, but I would like to draw another analogy. You can go to a music store and find the sheet music for a really complicated and beautiful piano piece (e.g. Rachmaninoff). You can understand when each key is hit, how hard, and for how long the note is held. You can understand all of the ins and outs of the mechanisms in the piano, and how it makes sound. Does that take any of the magic away from a beautiful piano performance? I would say “No”'. Can music even be magical to the person making the music? Absolutely.

Even us crazy atheists are still find something magical and awe inspiring in nature, even if we know how much of nature works and suspect what we don’t know is entirely natural as well. Or to put it another way, many of us have a wonderful time on roller coasters even though we know exactly where it is going.


[quote=“RLBailey, post:14, topic:36517”]
Our so-called “scientific world” has leeched [intended usage] the awe and wonder from much of what we see. [/quote]
Ray, that saddens me to read. I think your idea of the “scientific world” must have little to do with actual science.

For me as a biologist, the more I learn, the more awe and wonder I experience. I’m sorry that you have such a twisted idea of science.

In real science, exposing one mechanism leads to awe, wonder, and questions about many more underlying mechanisms that we don’t yet understand.

[quote]Science in its own way is exposing the the mechanisms that mask the feelings over a beautiful sunset when one knows it is caused by wildfire smoke, smog, or a volcano. We have to forget the causation and wonder at the result.
[/quote]When I went to see the total eclipse, most of the people around me who took the time to travel and be in awe of it were advertising their geekiness; there was no evidence that ANY of them were evangelicals.


In ancient times looking at the sun meant you were looking at “god”. Any subsequent eye damage could be attributed to the “blinding glory” (where do you think that term came from? :grin:) As for long-term cataracts or other problems, with poor diet and sanitation, and no antibiotics, blindness was very common.

I tend to be even more sensitive about my eyesight than most as my two aunts and an uncle all had congenital cataracts from my grandfather… My mother and her mother are the only ones in the family not legally blind (they can see, but with varying ability and all with thick glasses). So I grew up with eyesight being a sensitive topic.

Even at that, I have a burned spot in my right eye from accidentally seeing a welding arc as I walked through a factory (worker did not put his shield-curtain in place). I think our modern world has more causes for "bright light "damage than ancients, but they had more exposure to other eye problems. Evens out I guess.

Ray :sunglasses:

Sorry if I misleasd you in my own thoughts about Science. I have a high view of Science. What I have a low opinion of is how science is viewed by much of our society, and in my particular relgious circles. I apologize if I was unclear in what I was stating.

I am sure that was true for you. I, on the other hand, was in a parking lot of a local store, having set up binocular onto white paper on the ground. I kept asking them if they felt anything in looking at it. Many said things like neat, cool, or interesting. Only a few said “awesome, incredible” I asked them why they said what they did. Invariably the ones who expressed awe were Religious, and the others expressed non-religious or “technical” interest.

Forgive me if my hyperbolic imaginings of wonder in the world is too mystical for the more technically minded than me.

I do enjoiy your posts! Thanks!

Ray :sunglasses: