Fred Noonan was hired as the navigator specifically for this leg of the flight because of his navigation skills, which he proved by establishing Pan Am's transpacific routes, so it's not obvious to me why a navigational error would rest on Earhart's lack of skills in that area.
Or that your bricks aren't square, or they are actually made of sand, or that they collapse under load.
To leave the analogy behind, any non-trivial component has a testable surface area, but typically has additional modes of behavior associated with internal state, environmental conditions, or other areas that well-meaning unit test writers didn't think about.
I have often found issues in simple caller/callee pairs of two components, both of which are tested, but the caller contains subtle expectations of the callee that the unit tests don't match up with.
Software testing needs a unique mindset compared to traditional hardware reliability testing. The software doesn't "wear out" like the hardware but tends to fail in coordinating functions. Too often, we rely on simplistic measures like a hard restart to manage coordination failures, but that isn't always an option on safety-critical applications.
If an omnipotent God could arrange such an explosion, and we presume Him loving of all sentient creatures, He could easily arrange His explosion to avoid harming His creatures. Such a story wouldn't happen in the first place.
But what if He did? Anyone reading the Bible -- as certainly a Jesuit would have -- knows there is no theological requirement in Christianity that God value a life as humans value a life. "My ways are not your ways, says the Lord." St Paul is explicit that the notion that Pharaoh was created entirely for the demonstration of God's power by Moses does not contradict the justice of God. (Nor does he say Pharaoh was created for that purpose; he doesn't know, and treats the possibility as a hypothetical.)
Nor need the civilization's members be created simply for some demonstration. Perhaps they suffered the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps the nova was the End Of The World for _that_ civilization, a component of its Second Coming, just as (Christians believe) our world will eventually experience. Genesis, Exodus, Paul, Revelations each provide precedents for such an apparent catastrophe. The priest can easily imagine any number of explanations consistent with his faith. (Indeed one might be the light of one world's closure illuminating the opening of another, reminiscent of the Greek's beacon signaling the fall of Troy in Aeschylus' "Agamemnon".)
Whether we look at the story from God's end or the priest's, it doesn't make any sense.
The reader doesn't need to _like_ any of those possibilities. The point is that the values by which we like or don't like anything are not necessarily the same as those of God. C.S. Lewis imagines a devil overseeing temptation during WW II saying "I am not in the least interested in knowing how many people in England have been killed by bombs. In what state of mind they died, I can learn from the office at this end. That they were going to die sometime, I knew already. Please keep your mind on your work." ("The Screwtape Letters".) For Lewis, death doesn't mean the same thing to God as it does to us.
Still more, the Christian thinks the perspective by which we judge doesn't know all that He does. Many very clever people have pointed out that a super-intelligence will think differently than we do. Boethius argued (in the sixth century) that God's different experience of Time can explain the apparent contradictions of omniscience and free will. That lightweight Godel argued out that what is logically contradictory for us, trapped in sequential thought, can be resolvable by an infinite knowledge that is beyond sequence. More recently (and casually) Vernor Vinge posits (in "A Fire Upon The Deep") that the study of super artificial intelligences will be classified as "theology".
And the reader doesn't even have to buy any of that. That's what tolerance is about, we're all free to form our opinions and arguments as we think best.
But it is just ignorant to, well, ignore those opinions and arguments that we don't agree with.
And it is remarkable how many supposedly intelligent, curious and tolerant people become so ignorant of what careful and intelligent people have thought when the topic is theology.
The epitome of hegemony and privilege can't credibly act as an arbiter of truth, particularly in the current milieu, where it's simultaneously a bastion of The Oppressors™ and The Colonists™ as well as one of those liberal colleges indoctrinating The Children with Communism™ and/or Socialism™.
In short, few people actually care what Harvard has to say because it's popularly perceived as a mouthpiece for The Establishment.
Shakespeare's Brutus speech is brilliant, turning "Brutus is an honorable man" from econium to deadly sarcasm.
"[Shakespeare's] version of Mark Antony's speech is probably the greatest written speech ever"
Let us not forget the Gettysburg Address, which is the pivot point not of a factional quarrel but a national repurposing to equality, and shorter to boot.
There was a time when even union members and liberals agreed that a public sector union was a nonsense concept. I think it was JFK that first permitted them, and since then they've grown to such enormous political power that questioning their existence has become wrongthink.
In theory public sector unions cannot legally strike or engage in work actions but this constraint is ignored whenever they find it inconvenient.
They create a feedback loop between public expenditure and political power which is very bad for liberal democracy.
She had a reputation as an indifferent navigator and aviator which is consistently downplayed.