« 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.