The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Astronomy

It seems like human astronomy is more effective than it has any right to be. Why?

First I'll try to establish that there is a mystery to be solved. It might be surprising so see the words "effective" and "astronomy" together in the same sentence, but I claim that human beings have indeed made a non-negligible amount of astronomical progress. To cite one field that I'm especially familiar with, consider galaxies, where we went from having no concept of galaxies, to studies involving the milky way and other groups of light in the sky, to measuring their speed, location, age, and genesis, to the Einstein’s realizations that the flat universe and the Newtonian physics are both likely to be wrong or incomplete.

We might have expected that given we are products of evolution, the amount of our philosophical progress would be closer to zero. The reason for low expectations is that evolution is lazy and shortsighted. It couldn't possibly have "known" that we'd eventually need stargazing abilities to escape the planet. What kind of survival or reproductive advantage could these abilities have offered our foraging or farming ancestors?

From the example of my webcam, we also know that there are eyes in the design space of visual sensors that could be considered highly sensitive, but are incapable of making out distant stars. For example, a weasel is, apparently, incapable of making out more than a dim blurr. Nor would it be able to tell it was missing much, or have any reason to build telescopes.

Why aren't we more like CCTV in our ability to look at the stars? I have some ideas for possible answers, but I'm not sure how to tell which is the right one:

1. Astronomic ability is "almost" universal in eye space. Low-quality or pathologically horizontal visual receptors are an example of an atypical mind.
2. Evolution created stargazing ability as a side effect while selecting for the ability to see predators. This seems implausible; being able to see pretty lights in the sky would only serve to distract us.
3. Stargazing ability is rare and not likely to be produced by evolution. There's no explanation for why we have it, other than dumb luck. This helps explain why there’s no sign of alien life yet; Stargazing is the great filter.
4. We’re living in an ancestor simulation, which can only be run by species with the ability to escape their home planet, necessitating stargazing powers.

As you can see, progress is pretty limited so far, but I think this is at least a useful line of inquiry, a small crack in the problem that's worth trying to exploit. People used to wonder at the unreasonable effectiveness of philosophy, especially in probability, and I think such wondering eventually contributed to the idea of the philosophical universe if the world is made of philosophy, then it wouldn't be surprising that philosophy is, to para-quote Wei Dai, "appropriate to the objects of reality". I'm hoping that my question might eventually lead to a similar insight.