Scientific Foundations of Models of the Universe in the Concept of Modern Evolutionism

1. Entity type Lemma
2. Original titleНаучные основания моделей мироздания в концепции современного эволюционизма
3. Language term Russian
4. lemma author Asliturk, Miriam
5. lemma category Education, Science and Orthodoxy - Education, Science and Orthodoxy > Science and theology in education, from the Orthodox point of view - Scientific theories and disciplines > Biology:evolution - Culture and national identities
6. Publication date 07-08-2018
7. lemma work Неделько, В. И [Author]. Научные основания моделей мироздания в концепции современного эволюционизма
8. lemma manifestations Библиотека Гумер - гуманитарные науки
9. Keywords Big Bang - Evolution - Russian Orthodoxy - atheism - consumerism - Scientific research - Secular education - secularization - faith and knowledge - humanism - Western humanism
10. Url Click Here
11. Citations
    1. <p>Неделько, В. И, Прудников, В. Н., Хунджуа А. Г. (2005). Научные основания моделей мироздания в концепции современного эволюционизма. Библиотека Гумер - гуманитарные науки. Retrieved from: <a href="https://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Life_church/Article/Ned_NauOsn.php">https://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Life_church/Article/Ned_NauOsn.php</a> </p>
12. Lemma body

    1. The article argues that modern school education has many problems. One of them is the omnipresence of the Western framework of "secular humanism" - the official atheistic ideology of the United Nations, universally introduced through UNESCO. Secular humanism, through the propagation of "universal human values", wants to bring the whole civilized world to the bright future of "the triumph of freedom and democracy." The reality hidden behind this intoxicating discourse is in fact, in the view of the authors, a borderless, godless electronic concentration camp, called the "free consumer society."

       The ideology of secular humanism, the authors argue, gives a non-alternative preference to the evolutionary paradigm (which includes the theory of biological evolution, big bang theory, theory of the origin of the solar system), because it justifies materialism and atheism. The authors emphasize that it is the atheistic worldview that directs scientific research and not vice versa.

       Yet, the authors explain, evolutionism has a highly contradictory and hypothetical nature. The Big Bang theory for example is inconsistent and based on a number of purely speculative conclusions. Only one portion of theoretical assumptions concerning the Big Bang were indeed experimentally detected. The same holds true for a number of issues of stellar evolution: it is still not clear whether the transformations of the stars pass through the cycle of stellar evolution, or through some other processes. The question of the average density of matter in the universe is also based on assumptions, growing out of other assumptions. The existence of an invisible "dark matter" for example is postulated purely hypothetically. As to the hypothesis of the origin of the solar system, it contradicts the law of conservation of angular momentum.

       The most absurd though, according to the authors, is the "theory of biological evolution." Macroevolution, it is argued, develops contrary to the laws of biology. The laws of heredity (defined by Mendel) and molecular biology, unanimously speak of the heredity mechanism which is aimed at the preservation of the species. The same holds true for natural selection. The absence of intermediate species in the fossil record also confirms this fact. The authors argue that today’s biologists do not really believe in the evolution of species, but prefer not to talk about it for ideological reasons.

       Secular humanism tends to overestimate the role of logic and mathematics in scientific research. Often, no distinction is made between concepts such as law, theory and hypothesis, which allows hypothetical ideas to be represented as unquestionable truths. Thus it is argued that it is impossible to provide scientific knowledge of the world as a whole using modern science. The non-material world is to be studied too and this can be done through spiritual texts which, unlike atheism, are currently excluded from education and science. This situation, the authors conclude, needs to be changed. Education in the 21^st century should cease to serve atheism. Faith is a private matter and science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, neither should it set such goals for itself.