Page 237 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 214
Fairness Clause (Burden of Proof)
For each rival, we state what would count as a win for that model (e.g., a
continuous, well-dated symbolic record deep into the past would favor strict
gradualism). We also repeat what would falsify APH (e.g., absence of cognition-
linked regulatory changes across the ignition window; sustained parallel
symbolic traditions in non-sapiens lineages). This keeps the debate honest.
Why This Part Matters
Part V made APH testable. Part VI made it meaningful. Part VII must make it
earned.
To withstand critique is the final trial of any theory. If APH can account for
what gradualism, culture, and sparks cannot — while staying theologically
disciplined — then it stands not as a fragile speculation but as a framework of
lasting value.
The next four chapters are not detours; they are the proving ground. Here,
APH enters debate with its strongest rivals. And here, it must show why the
paradox of Adam — clay, names, spirit, trust — is the only model that explains
the silence, the symphony, and the responsibility that define us as human