“On a theoretical plane, three current solutions make it difficult to approach the problem of man and victim without misunderstanding […]: (1) the creationist reaction as a symptom of a lost paradigm, without a doubt the most dangerous regression, but interesting for its permanent and hallucinatory confusion of the radical axiomatic identity, which makes up the essence of the human-in-person, with the unity of creative transcendence” (François Laruelle, GENERAL THEORY OF VICTIMS, page 17, Polity Press, 2015).
The passage cited here is part of a more general argument where Laruelle rejects three of the sutures or reductionisms that, according to him, generate misunderstanding of the problem of man and victim.
(1) Religionism: Laruelle rejects the religionist suture, both in the form of “creationism”, and in the form of any doctrine that conflates the radical axiomatic identity of humans with the unity posited or imposed by any belief in a “creative transcendence”. This means that he puts on the same level the literal simplistic creationists and the more metaphoric sophisticated “creaturalists”.
(2) Scientism: Laruelle in the context of the passage cited goes on to reject the scientistic suture, which he calls “the diehard imagination of science-fiction”. Here he is rejecting both simplistic literalist reductionism of the human to just one permutation of the android-humanoid complex, but also the more metaphorical sophisticated “death (or “vanishing”) of man” philosophies.
In this double context Laruelle tells us that we cannot overcome either or both of these reductionisms by inventing a juxtaposition or synthesis in order to get a more complete picture where one supplements the other: “However, the solution is not in the synthesis of creationism or intelligent design, even the most well-informed, and science fiction”. In this quote we can see that he explicitly includes the so-called scientific theory of “intelligent design” under the creationist paradigm. I think that it would be correct to include it under the scientistic paradigm as well. So “intelligent design” would be a good example of what Laruelle condemns as the illegitimate synthesis of religionism and creationism.
(3) Politicism: The third reductionism, or suture, that Laruelle rejects here is “the politico-historial model”. Once again he rejects both a simplistic literal form, the one-upmanship of seeking out and espousing the most oppressed elements of a society, and the more metaphorical sophisticated versions which are exemplified by the “philosophies of the event”. Here he mentions by name Badiou and Heidegger.