This article is litered with controversial and authoritarian claims about different deeply philosophical and scientifically subtle concepts, all of these reductionistic perspectives examplified in the opening paragraphs.
First, “belief is literally belief” must have been written by a freshman intro to philosophy student. This is such a truism, there is no characterisation of belief to begin with, not to mention a characterisation that distinguishes 'belief' as specifically understood in the domain of 'science.’ Mind you, a discussion of belief in some general scientific sense is to begin with a false errand. 'Science' is not some uniform body among it’s many disciplines, and to say we handle belief universially between disciplines such as classical mechanics and addiction therapy is making this stronger and even more controversial claim about the nature of science. Let us not forget science is a method for developing understanding, not some authoritarian body of knowledge which we validate propositions about reality, rendering a simple binary true or false statement like a grammar teacher would do when grading elementary school students' homework by comparing thier sentence structure against a rubric.
Next, and perhaps the more glaringly obvious failure in this argument style that this work takes is attributing purpose to natural or biological processes. The eyes 'purpose' is not to orient you. That is a function. A purpose leaves open this wide spectrum of possibility between the intentional origin and foreshadowing an end result. Neither macro nor micro-evolutnary processes should be understood in these terms, and the entire article is a false leap from a very silly equivocation. Of what we can say about eyes, we certainly can say they are instruments of electromagnetic sensitivity. We cannot say they are aimed towards an end, or that the end they are aiming towards is better survival. Evolution is not aiming. Genetic life gets better survival in some cases, in most cases it does not. But again, that’s circumstances, and my very judgement of better or worse is derived through comparing observations to a hypothesis. That’s at the heart science.
Ultimately, survival is treated as a glorified metric that it really shouldn’t be. We here, those who have and who contribute to 'systematically' survival, may believe survival is important because that belief simply makes us better at surviving. I would say that we are putting the cart before the horse, but it’s more grave than that. This writing clings to a nearly baseless idolization of survival, which very foundation isn’t rationally founded to begin with
