The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.

When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

The simplest explanation is that it doesn't make sense.

To assume is to presume.

Life would be impossible on such a planet. It wouldn't get enough heat and light, and if it rotated there would be total darkness half of every day. There wouldn't be any native inhabitants. You couldn't expect life---which is fundamentally dependent on light---to develop under such extreme conditions of light deprivation. Half of every axial rotation spent in Darkness! No, nothing could exist under conditions like that.