The scientific picture of the world (SCM) is the basis of a rationalistic worldview, based on the total potential of science of a particular era. The NCM systematizes scientific knowledge obtained in various disciplinary areas. NCM is a synthesis of knowledge corresponding to a specific historical period in the development of mankind.

The evolution of the modern scientific picture of the world involves a movement from classical(achievements of Galileo and Newton, unambiguous causal relationship, the objects of the world seemed to exist independently, in a strictly specified coordinate system) to non-classical ( the influence of the first theories of thermodynamics, where liquid and gases are not purely mechanical systems. The development of the system is conceived in a direction, but its state at each moment of time is not determined. The lack of determinism at the level of individuals is combined with determinism at the level of the system as a whole: "statistical regularity") and post-non-classical (PNC) her stages.

Image PNK NCM: From the very beginning and to any given point in time, the future remains uncertain. Development can go in one of several directions, which is most often determined by some insignificant factor. Only a small energy impact is enough for the system to be rebuilt and a new level of organization to arise. In modern NCM, the analysis of social structures involves the study of open nonlinear systems, in which the role of the initial conditions, the individuals included in them, and random factors is great. The field of reflection on activity is expanding, its value-target structures are taken into account. The focus of post-nonclassical studies is the understanding of synergetic processes, which are very relevant in recent times. Nonlinear science has led to the emergence synergistic thinking.

In modern post-non-classical science, the entire potential of descriptive sciences, disciplinary knowledge and problem-oriented interdisciplinary research are focused on recreating the image of objective reality. The beginning of a new discipline, called synergetics, was laid by the speech of G. Haken in 1973. at the first conference devoted to the problems of self-organization.

synergetics, those. the theory of self-organization, characterize spontaneous structure genesis, non-linearity, open systems. In the synergetic picture of the world, formation reigns, burdened with multivariance and irreversibility. Time has a constructive function. Nonlinear systems include those whose properties are determined by the processes occurring in them so that the result of each action in the presence of another turns out to be different than in the absence of the latter.

The main distinguishing properties of the world, subject to nonlinear laws:

Irreversibility of evolutionary processes

Bifurcation nature of evolution: in a nonlinear system, there is an alternation of periods of relatively monotonous self-motion and bifurcation zones, where the system loses stability with respect to small perturbations

Dynamism of the structure of self-developing systems

New understanding of the future

Nonlinear science leads to evolutionary synergetic paradigm. Paradigms, i.e. models (samples) of setting and solving scientific problems, according to T.Kun, manage a group of research scientists and the scientific community. The pre-paradigm period is characterized by a chaotic accumulation of facts. The exit from this period means the establishment of standards of scientific practice, theoretical postulates, an accurate scientific picture of the world, the combination of theory and method.

Adoption evolutionary synergetic paradigm means the rejection of the basic postulates of traditional science: * The principle of the existence of absolutely reliable truth and knowledge; * The principle of classical strength; * Reductionism; * The concept of linearity; * The hypothesis of a posteriori, i.e. acquisition of knowledge solely on the basis of past experience.

PNK The NCM stage set new tasks. The development of the leading idea of ​​synergetics about spontaneous structural genesis presupposes the existence of an adequate categorical apparatus. One of the important ideas of post-nonclassical science is the statement about loss of system memory. The system forgets its past states, acts spontaneously and unpredictably, the past has almost no effect on the present, and the present has no decisive influence on the future.

An important feature PNK is the application post-analytical way of thinking, connecting at once 3 spheres of analysis - historical, critical-reflexive and theoretical.

Question 41. Expansion of the ethos of science. New ethical problems of science in the late 20th - early 21st centuries. Environmental ethics.

Ethics is a philosophical discipline that studies the phenomena of morality and ethics. The question of the ethics of science is the question of whether science can be the object of moral evaluation. Violent disputes on this issue have taken place throughout the history of the development of science and date back to the time of Socrates, who taught 2.5 thousand years ago that a person acts badly only out of ignorance and that having known what good consists in, he will always strive for it. The peculiarity of our time is that, along with these disputes, the creation of special structures and mechanisms, the task of which is the ethical regulation of scientific activity.

The ethics of science studies the moral foundations of scientific activity, the totality of value principles adopted in the scientific community, and concentrates the social and humanistic aspects of science. According to Merton, the ethos of science is an emotionally charged set of rules, regulations and customs, beliefs, values ​​and predispositions, which are considered mandatory for a scientist. The modern world is largely a technologized space, a person has surrounded himself with objects of technology, the essence of a person is being transformed in the direction of gravitation not towards nature, harmony and love, but towards technization. A contradiction arises between the primordial norms of ethics and the necessity of the technical existence of man, which entails a wide class of ethical problems of the artificial world. Diverse ethical problems in the most general form can be divided into ethical problems of physics, biology, genetics, technology; a special place is occupied by the problems of ethics of the scientist.

The most important issue is authorship of scientific discoveries, plagiarism, competence and falsification of scientific discoveries. For studies claiming scientific status, the institution of references, the “academic component of science”, is strictly obligatory, thanks to which the authorship of certain ideas is fixed and, in addition, the selection of that new one, which indicates the growth of scientific knowledge, is ensured. Otherwise, science will stagnate, carry out endless repetitions.

The issue is of particular importance scientist obsession, when he, engaged in scientific activities, breaks away from the real world and becomes like a robot.

Ethical issues stemming from the field biology, indicate the danger of absolutization of biologizing tendencies, within which many negative human traits are recognized as innate - violence, aggression, enmity, wars, as well as the desire for career growth, leadership, etc.

In the area of genetics problematic were questions about the influence of gender differences on mental activity, genetic and intellectual differences between races and nationalities (manifestations of racism and genocide).

Problems at the intersection of biology and medicine bioethics(attitude towards the patient only as an object of research or medical practice).

A special place is occupied by problems caused by increasing technization of medicine and the emergence of new medical technologies and drugs that expand the possibilities of influencing a person. The researcher of bioethics B.Yudin drew attention to the fact that modern biomedicine expands the technological possibilities of control and intervention in the natural problems of the origin, course and completion of human life. Various methods of artificial human reproduction, replacement of affected organs and tissues, active influence on the aging process lead to the fact that in all such cases there are borderline situations when the consequences of the achievements of scientific and technical progress are unpredictable. There is a danger of destruction of the original biological basis. Stress, exposure to carcinogens, pollution of the environment transform a person, destroy his health, and worsen the gene pool.

Genetic Engineering turned out to be the vanguard of scientific and experimental studies of the living world. It makes it possible to interfere with the human genetic code and change it, which is considered positive in the treatment of a number of hereditary diseases. However, there is a temptation to systematically improve human nature in order to adapt it more and more to the loads of the modern artificially created technosphere.

Problems manipulation of the human psyche effects on the human brain constitute a special group of problems. There are experiments related to the implantation of electrodes into the brain, which, by exerting weak electrical effects, prevent drowsiness and help relieve stress. Such manipulations are compared with tranquilizers and drugs.

The acute problem of today is cloning technology. The term "cloning" has always been related to the processes of vegetative propagation (cloning of plants by cuttings, buds, tubers in agriculture). Living organisms, such as amoeba, also reproduce by producing genetically identical cells, which are called clones. In a general sense, cloning can be called a process involving the creation of a creature that is genetically identical to the parent. As long as it was about cloning to ensure efficiency in agriculture, crop production, the problem did not become so acute, but when it came to class. man, it took the efforts of many theorists to comprehend the consequences of such a step. The solution to this problem is connected with the need for a clear understanding of the multidimensionality of the phenomenon of cl-I. There are medical, economic, ethical, philosophical, religious aspects of this problem. Kl-e as a complex experimental technology can lead to the reproduction of not only standards, but also freaks. From a methodological point of view, we are talking about a mismatch between the goals set and the results obtained, which in the conditions of class. on a person is immoral and criminal.

Global environmental problems are concentrated in the system of relations "man-society-biosphere". They require scientists to increase responsibility for the consequences and results of their activities, as well as to strengthen state control over the implementation of projects and developments. An analysis of environmental disasters in recent decades shows that in most cases they are caused by an ill-conceived technogenic impact that has a catastrophic effect on nature. Science responded by creating a new industry - social ecology. Its tasks are the study of extreme situations, the elucidation of anthropogenic, technological, social factors that cause the ecological crisis and the search for optimal ways out of it.

Global evolutionism and the modern scientific picture of the world is a topic that many researchers have devoted their works to. Currently, it is becoming more and more popular, as it addresses the most important issues of science.

The concept of global (universal) evolutionism assumes that the structure of the world is being consistently improved. The world in it is considered as an integrity, which allows us to talk about the unity of the general laws of being and makes it possible to make the universe "commensurate" with a person, to correlate it with him. The concept of global evolutionism, its history, basic principles and concepts are discussed in this article.

background

The idea of ​​the development of the world is one of the most important in European civilization. In its simplest forms (Kantian cosmogony, epigenesis, preformism), it penetrated natural science as early as the 18th century. Already the 19th century can rightfully be called the century of evolution. Theoretical modeling of objects characterized by development began to receive great attention, first in geology, and then in biology and sociology.

The teachings of Ch. Darwin, the research of G. Spencer

Charles Darwin was the first to apply the principle of evolutionism to the realm of reality, thus laying the foundations for modern theoretical biology. Herbert Spencer made an attempt to project his ideas onto sociology. This scientist proved that the evolutionary concept can be applied to various areas of the world that do not belong to the subject of biology. However, classical natural science as a whole did not accept this idea. Evolving systems have long been considered by scientists as a random deviation resulting from local perturbations. Physicists made the first attempt to extend this concept beyond the social and biological sciences by hypothesizing that the universe is expanding.

Big bang concept

The data obtained by astronomers confirmed the inconsistency of the opinion about the stationarity of the Universe. Scientists have found that it has been developing since the Big Bang, which, according to the assumption, provided the energy for its development. This concept appeared in the 40s of the last century, and in the 1970s it was finally established. Thus, the concept of the Big Bang penetrated into cosmology significantly changed the ideas about how substances arose in the Universe.

Only by the end of the 20th century, natural science received methodological and theoretical means for the formation of a unified model of evolution, the discovery of the general laws of nature that bind the appearance of the Universe, the Solar System, the planet Earth, life and, finally, man and society into one whole. Universal (global) evolutionism is such a model.

The Emergence of Global Evolutionism

In the early 80s of the last century, the concept of interest to us entered modern philosophy. Global evolutionism began to be considered for the first time in the study of integrative phenomena in science, which are associated with the generalization of evolutionary knowledge accumulated in various branches of natural science. For the first time, this term began to define the desire of such disciplines as geology, biology, physics and astronomy to generalize the mechanisms of evolution, to extrapolate. At least, this is the meaning that was invested in the concept of interest to us at first.

Academician N. N. Moiseev pointed out that global evolutionism can bring scientists closer to resolving the issue of meeting the interests of the biosphere and humanity in order to prevent a global ecological catastrophe. The discussion was conducted not only within the framework of methodological science. It is not surprising, because the idea of ​​global evolutionism has a special ideological load, in contrast to traditional evolutionism. The latter, as you remember, was laid down in the writings of Charles Darwin.

Global evolutionism and the modern scientific picture of the world

At present, many estimates of the idea in development that are of interest to us are alternative. In particular, the view was expressed that global evolutionism should form the basis because it is about man and nature. In other words, it was emphasized that this concept is of fundamental importance in the development of modern natural science. Global evolutionism today is a systematic formation. As V. S. Stepin notes, in modern science, his positions are gradually becoming the dominant feature of the synthesis of knowledge. This is the core idea that permeates special worldviews. Global evolutionism, according to V. S. Stepin, is a global research program that sets the research strategy. At present, it exists in many versions and variants, characterized by different levels of conceptual elaboration: from unsubstantiated statements that fill ordinary consciousness to detailed concepts that consider in detail the entire course of the evolution of the world.

The essence of global evolutionism

The emergence of this concept is associated with the expansion of the boundaries of the evolutionary approach adopted in the social and biological sciences. The fact of the existence of qualitative leaps to the biological, and from it to the social world, is largely a mystery. It can be comprehended only by assuming the necessity of such transitions between other types of movement. In other words, based on the fact of the existence of the evolution of the world at the later stages of history, we can assume that it as a whole is an evolutionary system. This means that as a result of successive change, all other types of movement were formed, in addition to social and biological.

This statement can be considered as the most general formulation of what global evolutionism is. Let us briefly outline its main principles. This will help you better understand what is being said.

Basic principles

The paradigm of interest to us made itself felt as a well-formed concept and an important component of the modern picture of the world in the last third of the last century in the works of specialists in cosmology (A. D. Ursula, N. N. Moiseeva).

According to N. N. Moiseev, the following basic principles underlie global evolutionism:

• The Universe is a single self-developing system.
• The development of systems, their evolution has a directed character: it follows the path of increasing their diversity, complicating these systems, and also reducing their stability.
• Random factors that influence development are inevitably present in all evolutionary processes.
• Heredity dominates the Universe: the present and the future depend on the past, but they are not unambiguously determined by it.
• Considering the dynamics of the world as a constant selection, in which the system chooses the most real ones from many different virtual states.
• The presence of bifurcation states is not denied; as a result, further evolution becomes fundamentally unpredictable, since random factors act during the transition period.

The Universe in the concept of global evolutionism

The Universe in it appears as a natural whole, developing in time. Global evolutionism is the idea according to which the entire history of the Universe is considered as a single process. the chemical and social types of evolution in it are interconnected successively and genetically.

Interaction with various fields of knowledge

Evolutionism is the most important component of the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm in modern science. It is understood not in the traditional sense (Darwinian), but through the idea of ​​universal (global) evolutionism.

The primary task of developing the concept that interests us is to overcome the gaps between different areas of being. Its supporters concentrate on those areas of knowledge that can be extrapolated to the entire universe and that could link different fragments of being into a kind of unity. Such disciplines are evolutionary biology, thermodynamics, and recently it has made a great contribution to global evolutionism and synergetics.

However, the concept that interests us at the same time reveals contradictions between and the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. The latter proclaims the selection of states and forms of the living, the strengthening of order, and the first - the growth of the measure of chaos (entropy).

The problem of the anthropic principle

Global evolutionism emphasizes that the development of the world whole is aimed at increasing the structural organization. According to this concept, the entire history of the Universe is a single process of self-organization, evolution, self-development of matter. Global evolutionism is a principle that requires a deep understanding of the logic of the development of the Universe, the cosmic order of things. This concept currently has multi-sided coverage. Scientists consider its axiological, logical-methodological and ideological aspects. The problem of the anthropic principle is of particular interest. Discussions on this issue are still ongoing. This principle is closely related to the idea of ​​global evolutionism. It is often regarded as the most modern version of it.

The anthropic principle is that the emergence of mankind was possible due to certain large-scale properties of the universe. If they were different, then there would be no one to know the world. This principle was put forward by B. Carter several decades ago. According to him, there is a relationship between the existence of intelligence in the universe and its parameters. This led to the question of how the parameters of our world are random, how much they are interconnected. What happens if there is a slight change? As the analysis showed, even a slight change in the basic physical parameters will lead to the fact that life, and hence the mind, simply cannot exist in the Universe.

Carter expressed the relationship between the appearance of intelligence in the universe and its parameters in a strong and weak formulation. The weak anthropic principle only states the fact that the conditions existing in it do not contradict the existence of man. The strong anthropic principle implies a more rigid relationship. The universe, according to him, must be such that at a certain stage of development, the existence of observers is allowed in it.

co-evolution

In the theory of global evolutionism, such a concept as "co-evolution" is also very important. This term is used to denote a new stage in which the existence of man and nature is coordinated. The concept of co-evolution is based on the fact that people, changing the biosphere in order to adapt it to their needs, must also change themselves in order to meet the objective requirements of nature. This concept in a concentrated form expresses the experience of mankind in the course of history, which contains certain imperatives and regulations of socio-natural interaction.

Finally

Global evolutionism and the modern picture of the world is a very topical topic in natural science. In this article, only the main issues and concepts were considered. The problems of global evolutionism, if desired, can be studied for a very long time.

1. Global evolutionism as the main paradigm of modern natural science

One of the most important ideas of European civilization is the idea of ​​world development. In its simplest and undeveloped forms (preformism, epigenesis, Kantian cosmogony), it began to penetrate into natural science as early as the 18th century. But already in the 19th century. may rightly be called the age of evolution. First, in geology, then in biology and sociology, more and more attention began to be paid to the theoretical modeling of developing objects.

In the sciences of the physicochemical cycle, the idea of ​​development made its way very difficult. Until the second half of the 20th century. it was dominated by the original abstraction of a closed reversible system in which the time factor plays no role. Even the transition from classical Newtonian physics to non-classical (relativistic and quantum) did not change anything in this respect. True, some timid breakthrough was made in classical thermodynamics - the concept of entropy and the idea of ​​irreversible time-dependent processes were introduced. Thus, the "arrow of time" was introduced into the physical sciences. But, ultimately, classical thermodynamics studied only closed equilibrium systems, and non-equilibrium processes were considered as perturbations, secondary deviations, which should be neglected in the final description of a cognizable object.

The penetration of the idea of ​​development into geology, biology, sociology, and the humanities in the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries. occurred independently in each of these branches of knowledge. The philosophical principle of the development of the world (nature, society, man) did not have a general, pivotal expression for all natural science (as well as for all science). In each branch of natural science, he had his own (independent of other branches) forms of theoretical and methodological concretization.

Only towards the end of the 20th century. natural science has found theoretical and methodological means to create a unified model of universal evolution, to identify the general laws of nature that link the origin of the Universe (cosmogenesis), the emergence of the solar system and our planet Earth (geogenesis), the emergence of life (biogenesis) and, finally, the emergence of man and society (anthroposociogenesis). Such a model is the concept of global evolutionism.

In this concept, the Universe appears as a natural whole developing in time, and the entire history of the Universe from the Big Bang to the emergence of mankind is considered as a single process in which the cosmic, chemical, biological and social types of evolution are successively and genetically interconnected. Cosmochemistry, geochemistry, biochemistry here reflect the fundamental transitions in the evolution of molecular systems and the inevitability of their transformation into organic matter.

The concept of global evolutionism emphasizes the most important pattern - the direction of the development of the world as a whole to increase its structural organization. The entire history of the Universe - from the moment of singularity to the emergence of man - appears as a single process of material evolution, self-organization, self-development of matter.

An important role in the concept of universal evolutionism is played by the idea of ​​selection: the new arises as a result of the selection of the most effective shaping, while inefficient innovations are rejected by the historical process; a qualitatively new level of the organization of matter finally asserts itself when it is able to absorb the previous experience of the historical development of matter. This regularity is characteristic not only for the biological form of motion, but also for the entire evolution of matter. The principle of global evolutionism requires not just knowledge of the temporal order of the formation of matter levels, but a deep understanding of the internal logic of the development of the cosmic order of things, the logic of the development of the Universe as a whole.

On this path, the so-called anthropic principle plays a very important role. The content of this principle is that the emergence of humanity, the cognizing subject (and, therefore, anticipating the social form of the movement of matter in the organic world) was possible due to the fact that the large-scale properties of our Universe (its deep structure) are exactly what they are; if they were different, there would simply be no one to know the Universe. This principle points to the deep internal unity of the laws of the historical evolution of the Universe, the Universe and the prerequisites for the emergence and evolution of the organic world up to anthroposociogenesis. According to this principle, there is a certain type of universal system connections that determine the integral nature of the existence and development of our Universe, our world as a certain systematically organized fragment of an infinitely diverse material nature. Understanding the content of such universal connections, the deep inner unity of the structure of our world (the Universe) gives the key to the theoretical and ideological substantiation of programs and projects for the future space activities of human civilization.

Directly related to the theories of evolutionism are ideas about the origin and development of the Universe. Based on the theory of the expanding Universe (which appeared in the first half of the 20th century), it turned out to be possible to trace the development of the Universe in the "reverse direction", i.e. try to go back as far back as possible. Although it was far from easy to carry out such a reconstruction, it nevertheless turned out to be successful.

According to modern views, about 14 billion years ago, the Universe was a material formation concentrated in some very small volume with a fantastically high density (many orders of magnitude greater than the density of matter inside the atomic nucleus). Suddenly, for reasons still unknown to science, there was a "Big Bang", which is usually called the "birth of the Universe" (because before this "explosion" matter had completely different, hard to imagine properties). Almost instantly (in 10 - 82 seconds) space swelled into a huge hot ball, much larger than the size of the visible part of the Universe. According to the latest calculations by American scientists, this happened 13 billion 700 million years ago.

Starting from the 20s of the XX century, the model of the expansion of the Universe, created by A.A. Friedman, was considered generally accepted. But the calculations made by him spoke of a uniform expansion of the universe, and new, more accurate calculations indicate a phase of almost instantaneous inflation. The new theory, created in the 80s of the XX century, mainly by the efforts of domestic scientists, was called the theory of the inflating Universe. According to this theory, in the process of inflating the original Universe (the Right-Universe) split into many separate Universes, differing in all the fundamental constants that determine the physical properties of the world. Our universe is one of them. Ideas of this kind are currently defended by some Russian scientists (A.D. Linde, S.S. Grigoryan, and others).

Each of the Universes expanded according to Friedman's scenario. In the beginning, when our Universe (like all others) was still very hot, heavy elementary particles were born in it, which consume a lot of mass and energy. They disintegrated and were immediately recreated anew, but the recovery rate gradually decreased, and the Universe was enriched with generations of ever lighter particles. According to calculations, protons and neutrons - the "building blocks" of which atomic nuclei are composed - were formed about a thousandth of a second from the "beginning of the world" or a little earlier. After a few minutes, they "stuck together" into nuclei. The entire subsequent evolution of the Universe - the formation of chemical elements, nebulae, stars, galaxies, and so on - is nothing but a slow decay, a long "tail" of primary processes.

The area of ​​the "beginning of the world" is the subject of the latest scientific direction, which has received the name of quantum cosmology. Until now, verification of theoretical conclusions about processes near the threshold of the "birth of the Universe" can only be based on indirect data. For example, on the study of the properties of elementary particles and reactions between them predicted by the theory. Advances in particle physics today inspire confidence in the correctness of scientists' cosmological constructions. It was significant that for the first time in the history of science, a bridge was “thrown” between two seemingly opposite poles of scientific knowledge - cosmology, which studies the Universe with its fantastic distances, and quantum physics, which studies phenomena in the ultrasmall. It turned out that, in essence, these are two aspects of the same scientific knowledge. In nature, everything is interconnected: by studying the properties of microparticles, physicists refine their understanding of the phases of the evolution of the Universe; cosmological data are used to choose between different versions of the theory of elementary particles.

An important event in cosmology in the last decades of the 20th century was the development of the relativistic theory of gravity (RTG), which is based on the works of a number of Russian scientists (A.A. Logunov, Yu.M. Loskutova, M.A. Mestvirishvili, etc.). This theory, which reinterprets physical reality in a new way, came to the end of the 20th century to replace the generally recognized until recently A. Einstein's general theory of relativity, which revealed serious shortcomings. An analysis of the general theory of relativity (GR) shows that the adoption of its concept leads, firstly, to the rejection of the laws of conservation of energy-momentum and angular momentum of matter and the gravitational field, taken together, and secondly, to the rejection of the representation of the gravitational field as classical field of the Faraday-Maxwell type... However, neither in the macro- nor in the microcosm there is a single experimental indication that directly or indirectly casts doubt on the validity of the laws of conservation of matter, therefore there are no physical grounds for rejecting these laws.

Because of this, general relativity as a theory devoid of these laws cannot be considered satisfactory from a physical point of view. The absence of any experimental indications of the violation of the conservation laws gives grounds to assert that only a theory that is consistent with the conservation laws and explains the entire set of gravitational effects can be physically acceptable.

RTG is just such a theory, in which the gravitational field is considered "like any other physical field with all the attributes inherent in physical fields."

Thus, at present, the idea of ​​global evolutionism is not only a statement, but also a regulative principle. On the one hand, it gives an idea of ​​the world as a whole, allows you to think of the general laws of being in their unity, and on the other hand, it orients modern natural science towards identifying specific patterns of the global evolution of matter at all its structural levels, at all stages of its self-organization.

Natural-scientific picture of the world

The emergence of the principle of global evolutionism means that modern natural science has established the belief that matter, the Universe as a whole and in all its elements cannot exist without development...

The meaning of evolution

In the modern sense, evolution is a series of successive changes with a historically significant result. We are not obliged to stipulate what changes (genotype, trait, population, species), how (continuously, intermittently, abruptly, directionally ...

The meaning of evolution

The direction of the development of the world as a whole to increase the structural organization is an essential feature of the idea of ​​global evolutionism. The whole history of the Universe from the Big Bang to the emergence of mankind, from this point of view...

Concepts of modern natural science

Today, global evolutionism is understood as a universal process of irreversible change from the simplest to the most complex forms, and is characterized by the genetic continuity of four types of evolution - cosmic, chemical...

Morphology and metabolism of yeast

Yeast as a source of protein The use of microbial biomass to enrich feed with protein and essential amino acids in conditions of intensive animal husbandry is one of the important problems of the future, as humanity develops in this way...

Scientific picture of the world and synergetic paradigm

Synergetics (from the Greek uhn - “together” and the Greek esgpt - “acting”) is an interdisciplinary direction of scientific research ...

The nature of biological knowledge

Modern biology has new strategic directions for the development of research activities, namely the design, construction of biological objects, control of living systems, forecasting...

The problems of self-organization are essential for understanding the evolution of matter, the development of living organisms, and the transformation of social ones. Synergetics is a process of complication...

Self-organization in nature and society

Cosmology is an astrophysical theory of the structure and dynamics of the Metagalaxy, which includes a certain understanding of the properties of the entire Universe...

Modern biotechnologies

Modern biotechnology includes a number of high technologies based on the latest achievements in ecology, genetics, microbiology, cytology, molecular biology...

One of the most important ideas of European civilization is the idea of ​​world development. In its simplest and undeveloped forms (preformism, epigenesis, Kantian cosmology), it began to penetrate into natural science as early as the 18th century. but in the 19th century...

Universal evolutionism

The ideas about the universality of the processes of evolution in the Universe are realized in modern science in the concept of universal evolutionism. Its principles make it possible to describe in a uniform way a huge variety of processes...

69. Rationality and Reductionism

The modern theoretical scientific (physical) picture of the world is built on two grounds: (i) recognition of the sufficiency (completeness) of the theoretical (mathematical) description, that is, the recognition of the unconditional possibility of constructing a rational model of the World, and (2) reductionism.

That is, (i) it is believed that any phenomenon under study can be associated with a mathematical expression describing (reflecting) the interconnectedness of the parameters (qualities) of this phenomenon, and (2) it is recognized that the description of complex phenomena consisting of some elements can be reduced to a description of these elements themselves and their interactions, or that the laws describing complex interactions (presumably evolutionarily later) can be reduced to a composition of simple laws describing early evolutionary phenomena.

68. Scheme of theoretical constructions in the modern paradigm

In fact, the generalized scheme of theoretical constructions in the modern scientific paradigm is as follows.

(i) There is a certain set of a priori data: parameters (to which, for example, the values ​​of physical constants can be attributed), hypotheses, postulates, necessary to start theoretical constructions and not amenable to description in the theory itself (derivation from it); (2) based on the initial data, a theory is constructed (in the simplest case, a formula) that rationally links a priori data; (3) as a result, there is a transition from private data to general dependence - a theory capable of making verifiable forecasts, the presence of which allows one to draw a conclusion about its reliability and scientific value.

In the general case, this scheme operates quite successfully - as a result, we have a modern physical picture of the World, which describes many observed phenomena with a high degree of accuracy.

69. Problems of the modern scientific picture Problems begin with the extrapolation of the described scheme "forward" and "backward".

Based on the principle of the completeness of scientific knowledge, it is assumed that although the initial a priori data of a particular theory lie outside it, there must necessarily be another, generalizing theory designed to describe these data, that is, a theory for which the a priori data of a particular theory are resultant (derivable). But since any scientific theory cannot be constructed without a priori data (postulates), the transitions from particular theories to more and more general ones acquire the character of a bad infinity. There will always necessarily be a certain set of initial postulates that lie outside the limits of scientific description.

The forward extrapolation problem is basically a reduction problem, a problem of reducing the description of a complex object to a description of its elements. That is, it is assumed that by performing some formal operations with the laws describing the elements of the system, one can obtain the laws of the system itself. Indeed, within certain limits, this scheme works successfully. But its spread further “forward” is stopped with the transition to the next highest hierarchical level of substance organization: already many chemical properties of molecules cannot be completely reduced to a description of the electromagnetic interactions of atoms, not to mention the description of living organisms and social phenomena.

So, on the way to constructing a theoretical model of the world that is ideal by modern scientific standards - a unified theory of everything - there are two obstacles: the problem of a priori knowledge and the problem of reduction.

70. Unified Theory of the World

The hypothetical Unified Theory of the World, on the one hand, should be based on the most elementary, immediate a priori assumptions, preferably minimal (or better, without them at all), and on the other hand, it should have as its solutions laws that describe the maximum (limitingly exhaustive) number of world phenomena belonging to all evolutionary hierarchical levels. The evolution of the World in such a theory is presented as a "realization", the disclosure of the content of a single law, which already initially contains a description of all phenomena. The non-simultaneity, the sequence in time of the manifestation of particular laws and, accordingly, the phenomena described by them is explained by the gradual formation of suitable conditions: a decrease in temperature, pressure, etc.

71. On the complexity of a unified theory

From a mathematical point of view, the construction of a Unified Theory may turn out to be quite real. It is probably possible to prove a theorem showing that for some two or more mathematical expressions (for example, formulas of physical laws) it is possible to find such a mathematical notation (system of equations) that would have these expressions as its particular solutions. But it will most likely turn out (which is also confirmed by modern experience in constructing unifying theories) that, on the one hand, in order to build such a generalizing system, it will be necessary to postulate a larger number of entities (a priori assumptions) than the total number of assumptions underlying the derived particular expressions (laws) . That is, the movement towards more and more generalizing theories after passing a certain reasonable limit only multiplies a priori foundations, without adding anything to the understanding of the essence of laws and without discovering new patterns. On the other hand, the mathematical embodiment of the generalizing theory itself will certainly be more complicated than the formulas derived from it. A vivid confirmation of the above is the modern contender for the role of a unified theory - the theory of superstrings: the unification of the laws describing the existing physical interactions is achieved through the introduction of new, empirically unfounded concepts and an increase in the number of degrees of freedom of objects (dimension of space) several times.

72. About fundamental and evolutionary laws

There is also a serious objective obstacle on the way of building the Unified Theory of the World. At the present stage of development of science, all known laws have to be divided into two groups.

The first includes laws that have their mathematical embodiment in the form of systems of equations and can formally be considered as solutions to a certain Unified Theory. And since the Unified Theory must certainly describe the World at the time of its Beginning, the laws belonging to the first group should be considered fundamental, stationary, taking place initially, regardless of the presence of the phenomena they describe.

The second group should include laws that describe phenomena at the highest evolutionary hierarchical levels and are not yet amenable to mathematical description, and therefore, in principle, cannot be considered either as solutions to a certain Unified Theory, or as a combination of fundamental laws.

In addition to the indicated formal division of laws into two groups, there is also a completely unambiguous conceptual division of them. How reliable, universally recognized in modern

scientific representation sees the thesis about the possibility of the initial existence of fundamental laws (as solutions to the Unified Theory) before the implementation of the phenomena they describe, the assumption of the existence of evolutionary laws before the start of the corresponding evolutionary stage (for example, social ones before the advent of civilization) seems just as irrational, absurd.

73. On the unified theory and finiteness of the list of laws

However, suppose that the formal obstacle to reducing evolutionary laws to fundamental ones is somehow resolved, that is, they can be written in the form of mathematical expressions and brought under a single system of equations. Not to mention the fact that in this case the complexity of the original theory should increase incredibly (here one dozen dimensions of space will not be enough), the problem of implementing the laws of subsequent evolutionary hierarchical levels will still remain in this Unified Theory. In the modern scientific paradigm, the Unified Theory is assumed to be stationary, that is, all solutions must be present in it from the very beginning. Is it possible to assert that the list of world laws (as well as world phenomena) is exhausted by the currently available set? And in general, is the totality of world phenomena in the present and future reducible to a fundamentally limited set of solutions of some finite Unified Theory?

74. One World - two scientific pictures

So, when analyzing the possibility of constructing a Unified Theory, we inevitably come to the conclusion that it cannot in any way correspond not only to the evolutionary-innovative ideas considered in this book, but also to the wishes of the modern formal-evolutionary scientific paradigm. The alleged Unified Theory of the World not only cannot be considered unified, that is, describing all evolutionarily emerging phenomena, but also cannot be built on elementary direct foundations, since it must initially have almost infinite complexity.

To overcome the described formal-mathematical and philosophical problems of building a unified scientific picture of the World, all laws can be divided into fundamental and evolutionary ones. The former should include some fixed set of laws, "recorded", "programmed" in the original theory. These fundamental laws "manifest", "come into action" at the corresponding stages of the evolution of the World - when suitable conditions are realized. The second, evolutionary, should include laws that are not solutions of a "single" theory, of which there can be an unlimited number. In fact, according to such a methodological scheme, science has been developing in recent centuries.

The modern scientific picture of the World is tacitly divided into two parts: physical and non-physical. Speaking about the construction of the Unified Theory, today they mean only the creation of a unified field theory, that is, the unification of a finite number of currently known physical interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak. The connection of fundamental laws with evolutionarily emerging ones, if discussed, is only within the framework of the problem of the anthropic principle, that is, from the side of their formal mutual correspondence to each other.

With such a division of laws into fundamental and evolutionary, the inevitable differentiation of the World into the physical environment and the evolutionary biological and social systems (levels) unfolding against its background takes place. The physical world, although recognized as non-stationary, is understood as having an initial predetermination and finite complexity. With this approach, the biological and social world can only be perceived as the result of random fluctuations (or irrational external interference, if we talk about non-scientific ideas). In the modern paradigm, by definition, it cannot be a natural consequence of the physical world, since in this case one would inevitably have to abandon the eternity and fixity of the original laws, their fundamental nature.

75. Modern scientific picture of the World and innovations

Consequently, the modern scientific paradigm, having shifted its priorities towards logical uniqueness and finiteness of the description of the World, excluded the possibility of evolutionary solutions, the possibility of a rational (scientific) description of the connection between fundamental and evolutionary laws.

This led to the fact that in the existing formal evolutionary paradigm only two options for the appearance of innovations are allowed: absolutely predetermined (programmed,

reductionist) and random.

The first option describes the emergence of innovation as a natural implementation of a certain law or set of laws when necessary and sufficient conditions are established. Consequently, the possibility of reduction (reduction) of any innovation to some predetermined fixed set of laws (or a single law) is stated. However, due to the very fact of the predetermination of innovations, that is, the existence of their laws until the moment of their appearance (or rather manifestation), innovations cannot be recognized as such. In the modern physical picture of the World, in which the reductionist, programmed version of the appearance of innovations is accepted, the first (really innovative) formation of an atom or a certain molecule in the history of the Universe (of course, if it is recognized that it really was) is fundamentally indistinguishable from all subsequent ones.

Any physical phenomenon, regardless of whether it is the first in time or not, is fundamentally predetermined by a set of fundamental laws related to the moment of the Beginning of the World and, therefore, cannot be considered as innovative.

76. Regularity and randomness of innovations

The second possible variant of describing the emergence of innovations in the modern scientific picture of the World - random - is cultivated outside the physical world, in the biological and social systems. In the modern paradigm, the very appearance of life, which is not rationally associated with fundamental physical laws, is explained only as a random phenomenon, as a fluctuation against the background of the physical world. The formation of all subsequent biological and social phenomena in the modern scientific paradigm is described as the result of the operation of the law of natural selection, that is, although the conformity of phenomena to certain external conditions is recognized, their appearance is described as a random event.

True, in contrast to the reductionist approach, such an approach (precisely due to the recognition of the randomness of the appearance of the new) makes it possible to distinguish the historically first, innovative and subsequent realizations of evolutionary phenomena. So in biology, the mechanisms of the formation of a new species and the subsequent reproduction of its representatives are distinguished: the first is described as a random event (the result of spontaneous mutation), the second - as a regular copy of the result obtained.

However, the statement of the exceptional randomness of the appearance of innovative phenomena in bio- and sociosystems excludes the possibility of a rational description of the sequence of innovations, their historical continuity, which is unequivocally observed in a retrospective view. If, with a reductionist, physicalist approach, the sequence of historically first manifestations of some phenomena is determined by a change in external conditions, then in a biological system and, especially, in a sociosystem, it is impossible to indicate the unambiguous conditionality of the appearance of innovations by environmental parameters.

Many researchers recognize the need to search for some rational mechanism for the consistent formation of bio- and socionations, different from random (or supplementing it). But the recognition of regularity, causation of the appearance of life and the entire chain of bio- and socionations necessarily destroys the stationary reductionist physical picture of the World. Indeed, for the consistent articulation of the deterministic and evolutionary parts of the picture of the World within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm, it is necessary to supplement the list of fundamental laws with a deliberately non-finite number of new laws, which certainly conflicts with the requirement of unambiguity and completeness of the theoretical description.

The duality of the scientific description of the World, the division of laws into stationary-predetermined and evolutionary-arising excludes the possibility of discussing the direction of its evolution. The motion of the World within the physicochemical stage is described as the behavior of a closed system, the emergence of new phenomena in which is considered as a purely formal realization of fundamental laws when temperature, pressure and other physical parameters change over time. The possibility and necessity of manifestation of this or that phenomenon is not considered.

as innovation-evolutionary - all possible events are initially prescribed in the fundamental laws (the ambiguity of the description is associated only with the problem of the uncertainty of the initial conditions). As a result, the discussion of the direction of evolution within the framework of the modern scientific picture is limited (begins and ends) with the thesis about the movement of the World towards the complication of the structure and forms of interaction of its elements. This thesis, in fact, is a generalization of empirical observations and has no theoretical justification. From a theoretical (physical) point of view, the World has maximum complexity already at the moment of the Beginning, since any of its subsequent state can only be considered as underdeveloped, underembodied, allowing further realization of entities from the complete pre-specified list of them.

The description of the appearance of innovations as random phenomena at the biological and social levels also excludes the possibility of substantiating the direction of the evolution of the World. The observed complication of the elements of bio- and sociosystems is in no way due to either a change in the external environment or the random principle of their appearance.

78. Evolutionary paradigm and scientific picture of the World

A possible solution to the problem of the inconsistency of the scientific description of the evolution of the World, a way to eliminate the gap between stationary-preset and evolutionary-arising laws can be the recognition of all laws as evolutionary. It is clear that this assumption is made in line with the innovation-evolutionary paradigm considered in this book, according to which, at the time of the Beginning, the World is considered as an elementary, indefinite object with unit complexity, the scientific description of which can be reduced to an elementary law: “The world exists”. Further, strictly following the evolutionary paradigm, it is necessary to make a judgment that all subsequent laws in the history of the World "arise" (not realized, not manifested, initially present in a latent form, namely, they arise) simultaneously with the phenomena they describe.

The judgment about the evolutionary nature of laws, on the one hand, reflects the innovative sequence of the emergence of world phenomena from the elementary Beginning to modern complex evolutionary systems, and on the other hand, it is opposed to ideas about the a priori existence of non-elementary ideal phenomena (fundamental laws) in the absence of real complexity of the organization of the World at the time of the Beginning. .

The evolutionary-innovative approach to the scientific description of the movement of the World does not deny the very existence and reliability of laws that are traditionally considered fundamental. It is proposed only to change their status as absolutely predetermined, existing before and outside the Beginning of the World, and, most importantly, to try to establish their hierarchical subordination as opposed to their juxtaposition, equivalence, accepted in traditional science. That is, having actually taken the position of evolutionism, we are forced not only to declare a gradual, consistent formation of hierarchical levels, but also to recognize the gradual formation and hierarchy of the laws that describe the phenomena of these levels.

The notion that laws arise and change synchronously with the evolution of systems looks more scientifically correct and even more consistent with common sense than the classical version, which recognizes their external predeterminedness for the World.

The evolutionary paradigm is not physical, it is rather metaphysical, philosophical, it cannot replace specific physical theories, but is intended only to some extent to contribute to the search for solutions to overcome the contradictions of the modern deterministic modern scientific paradigm that does not have evolutionary solutions.

79. Evolutionary Paradigm and Unified Theory

Most clearly, the difference between the two philosophical and methodological approaches to understanding the essence and structure of the scientific description of the World - traditional reductionist and innovative evolutionary - is manifested in relation to the very possibility and essence of the Unified Theory.

The principles and problems of building the Unified Theory in the traditional scientific sense were described in some detail in previous judgments. In short, they boil down to the following: the ideal of the modern scientific paradigm is the construction of a certain theory, a certain logical (mathematical) system, for which the laws of all world phenomena will be particular solutions. Consequently, the Unified Theory as its solutions cannot offer anything other than the laws already known today, that is, precisely those laws that do not have evolutionary (innovative) solutions. Moreover, proceeding from the essence of the problem statement, the Unified Theory itself fundamentally cannot be evolutionary, that is, it cannot have as its solutions equations that describe phenomena that do not yet exist.

The principle of "lawmaking" within the framework of the evolutionary-innovative paradigm is subject to a different logic. All world laws, both from a historical and logical point of view, are considered as a kind of hierarchical sequence - a chain, a ladder. The first, initial law (like the first phenomenon, like the first innovation in the World) seems to be the most simple, direct, elementary. Consequently, each "subsequent" (both in terms of the time of formation of the innovative phenomenon described by it, and according to the logical conclusion) law cannot be a particular solution of the "previous" law. Simply because the "subsequent" laws are more meaningful than the "previous ones", that is, they describe phenomena with a large number of parameters. Based on the presented evolutionary logic, “subsequent” laws can only be considered as a superposition of all previously existing ones and, therefore, are not reducible to any of them, are not deducible from any of them as particular and singular.

Consequently, in the evolutionary paradigm, the very possibility of the existence of the Unified Law in the form of one or a set of finite mathematical equations is fundamentally denied. In the evolutionary approach, a unified theory should not be a kind of stationary system, the particular solutions of which are the laws of elementary interactions, but a sequential chain of laws, the previous links of which are the basis for the derivation of subsequent ones. In fact, this system should look like a hierarchical sequence of equations with a variable (time) parameter. The necessary mathematical apparatus, most likely, can be found on the way to constructing a hierarchical system of mathematics that describes the patterns of transition from arithmetic objects to algebraic, integral-differential, etc.

The development of knowledge (understanding) of a certain phenomenon is seen not in the search for a unified theory that exhausts all its properties, but in the establishment of some relationship (temporal and logical) between existing (and newly created) particular theories, in the construction of their hierarchical system. Theories that describe the phenomenon from different points of view are recognized as equal, although they are reliable only in their limited areas. And from this position, the evolutionary paradigm itself is seen not as a metalaw of the described phenomenon (subject, object, system), but as the principle of specifying a system of fixed points of view - the principle of constructing a hierarchical system of particular theories of an object that maximally overlaps the space of its consideration. Private laws do not follow from this system, it only establishes (describes) their hierarchical subordination. As a result of knowledge in line with the evolutionary paradigm, on the one hand, understanding of the subject of study can deepen (elevate, expand), and on the other hand, ways of developing particular theories can be outlined, new points of view, that is, areas for constructing new theories, may open up.

80. Complementarity of paradigms

However, when considering the classical stationary and evolutionary-innovative paradigms, one should not raise the question of the primacy of one of them. If we ignore the evolutionary formation of the World, we will not only be unable to understand the mechanism of the appearance of innovations in the past, but we will certainly deprive ourselves of the possibility of any kind of forecasting the future. However, having taken the position of consistent denial of any stationarity of the World, we will be forced to abandon many unconditionally productive scientific theories.

The problem is solved not at the level of preference for one or another paradigm, but by delineating the boundaries of their subject and distinguishing points of view, levels of scientific consideration.

More on the topic of the Evolutionary paradigm and the scientific picture of the World:

Chapter 5. Modern scientific picture of the world

Topic 10. Modern natural-scientific picture of the world

Ushakova E.V. System philosophy and system-philosophical scientific picture of the world at the turn of the third millennium. 1998, 1998

Today, global evolutionism is understood as a universal process of irreversible change from the simplest to the most complex forms, and is characterized by the genetic continuity of four types of evolution - cosmic, chemical, biological and social. This is "the consideration of inanimate, living and social matter as a single universal evolutionary process". Manifested through the evolutionary laws of individual fragments of reality, global evolutionism ensures "the unity of the entire set of evolutionary processes in the Universe, in particular, the continuity of the processes of progressive evolution" . V.V. Kazyutinsky believes that this process "includes not only the biological and social characteristics of a person, but also his spiritual sphere" . The idea of ​​a universal, directed, irreversible development creates the possibility of a unified view of the infinite diversity of the world and raises the problem of substantiating the idea of ​​the unity of the world by means of modern science.

S.T. Melyuhin realized the importance of this problem. He formulated the task: "... to give proof of the universal nature of the currently known universal properties and laws, the need for their manifestation at all structural levels and stages of development" . Melyuhin made a significant contribution to the solution of this problem. In his book "Matter in its unity, infinity and development" (1966), he substantiated the idea of ​​the progressive development of matter and its unity with the fundamental data of cosmology, biology, sociology and other areas of scientific knowledge. But the task set in 1966 requires today the involvement of new modern data.

Obviously, the development of the idea of ​​global evolutionism has as its primary task the elimination of gaps between different areas of being. Therefore, the attention of supporters of the idea of ​​global evolutionism is drawn to those areas of knowledge that could be extrapolated to the entire universe and would be able to link different fragments of being into some kind of unity. Such disciplines are thermodynamics, evolutionary biology and, more recently, synergetics. We will consider the universalist programs coming from the field of biological theories of evolution and setting the biological vision of the universals of the world.

Darwinian version of global evolutionism

The biological interpretation of the idea of ​​global evolutionism can be filled with different specific content, depending on what evolutionary theory will be put at its foundation. Let's compare the concept of global evolutionism of P. Teilhard de Chardin and Darwinism. According to the first, the laws of complication are of a spiritual nature and flow towards the "Omega point". And Darwinism, with its famous triad "heredity - variability - natural selection", builds a completely different idea of ​​​​universal development. So N.N. Moiseev claims that the whole picture of the developing world is a single process that "unfolds within the framework of the Darwinian triad." There is an idea of ​​the world as a grandiose deployment of the processes of selectogenesis (informational, biological selection, selection of the gene pool). Darwinian-oriented researchers, extrapolating their positions about the random nature of evolution, insist on the unpredictability of the nature of extraterrestrial life and intelligence. Representatives of other concepts solve this problem differently. Supporters of nomogenesis, for example, draw a specific image of an alien, based on their ideas that the development of life is necessary and natural.

What biological theory determines today the type of global evolutionism translated into the modern scientific picture of the world? It is constructed on the basis of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism (STE). Why is Darwinism, one of the many evolutionary concepts, given such priority in the public mind? Consider this issue in more detail, based on the characteristics of the modern mentality.

In recent decades, processes characterized as a "turn to naturalism" have increasingly captured the philosophical and scientific space. The principle here was: "everything through natural-science concepts." Worldview and philosophical problems are solved by turning to the natural sciences. This is seen as a way out of the impasse, when centuries of research of a philosophical and epistemological nature could not lead to a solution to the most important problems facing humanity, including the problem of the objectivity of knowledge. Hence the desire to "consider various problems of a philosophical order from concrete scientific positions and with the help of concrete scientific knowledge" .

Darwinism most fully meets these demands of the modern mentality, creating the possibility (or the illusion of possibility) of solving both scientific and philosophical issues. He gave a clear mechanism for the complication of matter from a cell to a person, and thereby explained the evolution of life by natural causes, "showed the failure of teleologism and approved teleonomy, which now relates to teleology as chemistry to alchemy" . And although Darwin did not deny the Creator, his theory made the Creator unnecessary for explaining the complexity and expediency of the living world. G. Vollmer believes, for example, that the great Kantian questions: "What can I know?" "What should I do", "What can I hope for?" and "What is a man?" now resolved by applying the principle of evolutionism (which, in his opinion, was inaccessible to Kant). The philosophical problem of the connection between thinking and being (through adaptation to being in the process of evolution) has also been solved. The whole complexity of human thinking, its self, responsibility, creativity arose just like a horse's hoof, as a result of adaptation to the environment (Quine). There is no secret of the essence and origin of life and consciousness for Darwinists. Its explanation is given by natural selection.

"The idea of ​​natural selection has an amazing fate," writes V.I. Nazarov, "having been born in biology, it captured the minds of physicists, chemists, mathematicians, cosmologists - representatives of the whole natural science as a whole, constituting the most important element of the natural science picture of the world. From natural science, it spread to sphere of the humanities (including the theory of knowledge), demonstrating its productivity everywhere. As a result, the idea of ​​selection became so universal that it acquired the status of an axiomatic category and the most important achievement of science of the classical period ". Thus, the central concept of Darwinism - natural selection has acquired the status of an important component of the modern mentality. The concept of natural selection has gone far beyond the scope of biology and is now one of the worldview principles invisibly present in culture. These are "obligatory concepts and representations universal for the whole society". It is impossible to think about the world without using these categories. (A.Ya. Gurevich) These categories also include the idea of ​​natural selection, which has entered the system of general ideas, so familiar and banal that they are usually not noticed and which, beyond any reflection, are self-evident for modern man. It sets the understanding of the nature of man, his activities and determines today the "spiritual climate" of the era. For most of our contemporaries, "Darwinism" and "evolution" merge into a single concept, are identified. (And the critique of Darwinism is often seen as an attack on evolution in general.) Darwinism also sets the research program for new scientific disciplines (for example, in cognitive sciences, biopolitics, etc.), i.e. it is a universal explanatory program applicable to the most diverse areas of the world.

Therefore, Darwinism is not just one of the many concepts of evolution that claims to explain the mechanisms of the evolutionary process. This priority theory has become the natural science basis for a materialistic understanding of the world. It was a powerful tool in the fight against religion and the establishment of materialistic views on the world. In Soviet times, Darwinism was considered as the natural science basis of dialectical materialism. In the same way, Western scientists emphasized the importance of Darwinism, which produced "the replacement of the creationist dogma, the discovery of the natural mechanism of evolution, the transformation of natural selection into a universal principle of natural science and a revolution in the worldview of philosophers, natural scientists and all cultural humanity" .

Thus, Darwinism is split into two aspects - worldview (in the scientific picture of the world and social mentality) and natural science (in evolutionary biology). In the modern mentality, it plays a dual role. Firstly, it is a universal explanatory principle and the core of the modern scientific picture of the world, and secondly, it is one of the many concepts in evolutionary biology, which, although it dominates today, in the form of a synthetic theory of evolution (STE), is subjected to serious criticism. .

Darwinism worldview regularly serves the materialistic understanding of being, plays a decisive role in the modern scientific picture of the world, setting a unified view of the mechanism of matter complication.

But in scientific terms, the situation is much more complicated. In this area, he does not "pull" the status of a universal explanatory principle. If we consider Darwinism not from a worldview, but from a natural-science standpoint, then we can note the ever-increasing objections to its conclusions.

Studies of evolution show the amazing complexity and diversity of its processes. Today, for many experts it is obvious that Darwinism looks like a hypothesis that greatly simplifies the actual state of affairs. The facts that serve as arguments against Darwinism (the existence of non-adaptive directions of evolution, the "aging" of phylogenetic lines and extinction not directly related to external influences, pre-adaptation, parallelisms and/or convergences, limitations of variability or evolutionary prohibitions, etc.) present great difficulties for explanation in within this teaching.

Neo-Darwinists themselves are forced to recognize the limited nature of the action of natural selection in many areas of evolutionary development (L.P. Tatarinov, N.N. Vorontsov, E.I. Kolchinsky and others). Even the outstanding biologist, one of the creators of the synthetic theory of evolution, E. Mayr was forced to limit the scope of natural selection and recognize the action in certain areas of other, leading mechanisms of phylogeny. Also, punctualism and neo-catastrophism, competing with STE, remove entire areas from its sphere of action, thereby depriving it of the status of a universal explanatory principle of evolutionary transformations taking place in the world. Moreover, this can be said about the systematic approach to the problem of evolution, which has not yet been accepted universally, but is inevitably approaching, which introduces a new approach to the study of the living world and its laws, considering evolution as a whole as a single system genesis, and not as a set of acts of adaptation of each species to its own environment. (V.A. Krasilov, V.I. Nazarov, Yu.V. Tchaikovsky, G.A. Zavarzin, V.I. Vernadsky, V.I. Danilov-Danilyan, Gorshkov, K.I. Losev, S.D. . Khaitun, etc.)

Disputes about the reliability of Darwinism and the role of natural selection in the processes of speciation are not just disputes about the truth of the provisions of a particular concept, which do not go beyond the interests of evolutionary biology. They have the nature of a clash of worldviews and often become violent. After all, it is not only about the factors of the mechanism of macroevolution, but also about the fundamental laws of the whole world!

Therefore, the problem of the reliability of Darwinism and the role of natural selection, as the main "motor" of evolution, has not only scientific, but also ideological significance. It is here that the bitter ideological struggle against dissenting anti-Darwinist evolutionists is rooted. Scandals continue to this day. For example, E. Mayr accused the opponents of Darwinism of "such a striking ignorance of the foundations of genetics and all modern literature that it would be a waste of time to refute it," although among these "ignoramuses" were the greatest authorities in evolutionary biology and, according to Academician L.P. Tatarinov, these accusations are completely unfounded. The other side also did not hesitate in expressions: A.A. Lyubishchev replied to Mayr in the same style: "The conscious ignorance of E. Mayr regarding facts objectionable to him reveals in him a dogmatist who blindly believes in his postulates, and not a sober scientist."

Nevertheless, despite all the disputes, Darwinian ideas about the nature of the universal evolutionary process, with natural selection as a factor in the complexity of the world, remain dominant in the mentality and form the core of the modern scientific picture of the world. For a wide range of scientific intelligentsia, Darwinism remains an indisputable truth. (According to G. Vollmer, for example, "the cause of evolution has been fully proven." This is the final knowledge). So today there is a paradoxical situation: on the one hand, unconditional faith in the natural selection of the scientific and near-scientific community (which is determined by its categorical nature), and on the other hand, specialists in the theory of evolution have growing doubts about its leading role in phylogenesis . The ideological priority of the concept of selection is unshakable, and in science its significance is disputed.

Then the question can be raised: how, in such a situation, natural selection can play the role of a universal explanatory reason for evolutionary processes in the Universe? How can a concept that is controversial for many reasons, in any case, has lost its universal character, serve as the most important component of modern ontological ideas, as well as serve as a methodological principle and program for many scientific disciplines?

The answer to this question, in my opinion, lies in the psychological characteristics of a person. E.A. Mamchur writes that the apologists of a certain theory find it difficult to perceive facts that contradict it, which, as it were, “fall out” of the consciousness of the researcher. Apparently, in the case under consideration, a similar situation arose. It is here that the key to unraveling the frequent silence by Darwinists of facts that contradict their theory lies (Many critics of STE point to the "strategy of silence").

We can state that the role of a universal theory of development today is a concept that is not able to fully explain even the evolution of one fragment in the process of the general complication of the world - the evolution of life, but, nevertheless, claims to be the basis of the idea of ​​global evolutionism. It is clear that this situation is temporary, and that the specific content of modern global evolutionism may soon change, along with a change in the leading evolutionary paradigm.

What happens if the scientific failure of Darwinism is recognized? It will be a shock. First of all, because a large number of scientific disciplines depend on Darwinism. This teaching is a layer of prerequisite knowledge, which is explicitly or implicitly present in the fundamental ideas of the era. As noted above, it is invisibly present in our culture and creates the self-evidence of general ideas about nature. We do not notice that not only our methodology in vast areas of knowledge is focused on Darwinism, but also the axiomatics of many fundamental concepts is nothing more than a paraphrase of Darwin's ideas about evolutionary processes in the living world. Today, with the help of the concepts of adaptation and selection, even the emergence of religion, art, and morality is interpreted. They are viewed through the prism of their selective value in the general processes of competitive struggle, which seem to be the essence of anthropogenesis and cultural genesis (G. Vollmer, D. Dennett, etc.). In the event of the devaluation of Darwinism, the foundation of many sciences will collapse. It will be a worldview catastrophe.