Continuing the discussion from Drs Sanford and Carter respond to PS participants:
From the article that Paul Price wrote:
The debate has continued on Dr. Joshua Swamidass’ Peaceful Science blog. He is an evolutionist and the author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE), which received a scathing review on Creation.com. We find his science to be not at all ‘peaceful’, but openly hostile to the views of biblical creationists. In fact, he openly admits that his GAE hypothesis represents a sort of Hegelian1 synthesis between creationism and evolutionism.2 Readers be cautioned! Tricky rhetorical flourishes are not good arguments, but they abound in those pages.
This is footnote 1:
The ‘Hegelian dialectic’ is a system of thinking that describes a thesis , which gives rise to a reaction (an antithesis ), which leads to tension, that is eventually resolved by a synthesis of the two positions. This approach is the basis of Marxist philosophy, although it is certainly not restricted to these writers, having roots in Kant, Goethe, Spinoza, and others
The reference is to this post:
One important thing to note is that the idea of synthesis did not begin with Hegel and Marx, nor did it even start with Spinoza and Kant. So it is misleading to associate GAE with these figures as if it is some sort of modernist idea by attempting to synthesize two different philosophies. Synthetic thinking in Christianity has existed for almost as long as Christianity itself. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century AD already tried to harmonize Christianity with Platonism. Augustine is well-known to have adopted many elements of Platonism. Thomas Aquinas is famous for appropriating Aristotle into his thought (while still being influenced by Augustine). The Reformers adopted many parts of Roman Catholic thought more or less wholesale (e.g. doctrine of God and the Trinity) while rejecting and/or modifying others.
Going back even further, there are similarities between the Apostle Paul’s writings and the philosophy of Stoicism. And of course Christianity itself is a synthesis between Judaism and the life, teachings, and works of Jesus.
In other words, there is nothing mysterious or even Hegelian about the general idea of synthetic thinking. Synthetic thinking is none other than reading other thinkers with different opinions with a discerning mind and using some of their insights or questions to develop and improve your own ideas. Synthetic thinking does not always mean compromising your core principles. There are syntheses which fail, but there are also those which succeed.
Synthetic thinking is present even in creationism itself. It is well-known that important elements of the modern creationist movement started from the work of Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price, who followed SDA founder Ellen White in holding YEC views. Yet many YECs today happily appropriate and develop these materials for their own benefit, even if they come from conservative churches which would denounce SDA theology as erroneous, even heretical. Similarly, the modern ID movement can also be viewed as a “synthesis” of sorts between earlier creationist anti-evolutionist ideas and information theory, including tamping down the more overtly religious elements in the hopes that it would become more acceptable to secular scientists.
My overall point is, even if GAE is a “synthesis” of sorts, I don’t view it as necessarily having anything to do with Hegelian philosophy. There’s nothing inherently right or wrong about synthesis itself.