After reading the article, I think the technique of requiring “fast thinking” responses doesn’t really show what’s going on in our hidden thinking. Rather, I believe it’s just a linguistic artifact. Because our language has been strongly influienced historically by religious views, “purpose” is built into our verbalization even if, as scientists, we don’t think that way. It’s easy during a fast paced oral discussion to make a quick, short, sloppy statement that doesn’t express accurately the complexity of our position. I think the same kind of thing happened here, but the psychologists were far more interested in coming up with a more dramatic explanation.