How are you sure that this "Absolute" exists? Is it not a mere tautology?
The Absolute is the most self-evident thing in the world because everything that exists, including our own being testifies to it. Reality is absolute by definition, however the implications of this escape nearly everyone.
“The idea that the Supreme Principle is both Absolute Reality and, for that reason, Infinite Possibility, can suffice unto itself, for it contains everything...”
“In metaphysics, it is necessary to start from the idea that the Supreme Reality is absolute, and that being absolute it is infinite. That is absolute which allows of no augmentation or diminuation, or of no repetition or division; it is therefore that which is at once solely itself and totally itself. That is infinite which is not determined by any limiting factor and therefore does not end at any boundary; it is in the first place Potentialty or Possibility as such, and ipso facto the Possibility of things, hence Virtuality. Without All-Possibility, there would be neither Creator nor Creation...”
from Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism
“If it were necessary or useful to prove the Absolute, the objective and trans-personal character of the human Intellect would be a sufficient testimony, for this Intellect is the indisputable sign of a purely spiritual first Cause, a Unity infinitely central but containing all things, an Essence at once immanent and transcendent. It has been said more than once that total Truth is inscribed in an eternal script in the very substance of our spirit; what the different Revelations do is to “crystallize” and “actualize”, in different degrees according to the case, a nucleus of certitudes that not only abides forever in the divine Omniscience, but also sleeps by refraction in the “naturally supernatural” kernel of the individual, as well as in that of each ethnic or historical collectivity or the human species as a whole.”
from Light on the Ancient Worlds
How would you call the rival theory of the theory of evolution? Intelligent design is not exclusive of fundamentalist Christians.
There is no question here of rival theories, there is a question of truth and falsehood. That forms are crystallisations of metaphysical principles can be deduced from intellectual intuition and traditional accounts which are based on divine inspiration. Evolutionary theory is a recent assertion and therefore, especially considering the enormity of its assertions has the responsibility, if it is to be accepted, of disproving every traditional account of man's origins, which brings me to this...
The theory of evolution is not an universal induction (no theory is), but by far, is the best theory about diversity, specially because intelligent design fails to falsify their hypothesis. The strength of intelligent design cannot be found on itself through the observation of natural events, but is there the fill the relatively few gaps of evolutionary theory.
Why is it that proponents of intelligent design (once again I stress that this is not the position of the traditionalist school as such), are required to falsify a hypothesis but that evolutionists have no obligation to do the same, this is typical modernist reasoning.
To clarify, the term intelligent design only applies to the traditionalist position if it is understood to mean that forms are crystallisations of universal intelligence. There is no question here of the anthropomorphic Creator literally designing things, although most traditionalists would say the the true content of this mythology is enough to outweigh its errors under certain circumstances.
I find this unnecessarily complicated. Is there any way that someone could prove that the Absolute wasn't for the material formation and evolution of life? Life originated and evolved from matter, the rival theory intelligent design or "the theory of emanation" is there to battle against the gaps of "evolutionary records" and stuff like that. Is simple: there's diversity, and evolutionary theory is far better than intelligent design explaining it.
This point of view is why the evolutionist hypothesis came into being, that is to say a total ignorance on non-physical reality, or the impression that reality consists entirely of sensible things. Let me stress that the 'rival' theory as you call it was not created to disprove evolutionary theory but is an offshoot of the traditional understanding of the origins of life. There are gaps in evolutionary theory because it is not true, there are no real gaps in the emanationist conception. The reason for the diversity of life is the Infinite, which contains by its very nature the necessity of indefinite diversity and manifestation. It is relatively easy to explain the existence of a particular creature or form in terms of its metaphysical symbolism, but this will never be enough to convince someone who is entrenched in the materialist mindset.
“The form of a peripheral being, whether it be animal, vegetable or mineral, reveals all that that being knows, and is, as it were, itself identified with this knowledge; it can be said, therefore, that the form of such a being gives a true indication of its contemplative state...humanly speaking it would be absurd to say that gold is more intelligent than copper or that lead has little intelligence, but metaphysically there is nothing ridiculous in such an assertion: gold represents a solar state of knowledge, and it is this, moreover, which permits of its association with spiritual influences and its being thus invested with an eminently sacred character.
In the case of man, intelligence is inward and existence outward...one might also say that man is normally, by primordial definition, pure knowledge and the mineral pure existence: the diamond, which stands at the summit of the mineral realm, integrates intelligence as such in its existence or manifestation, therefore passively and unconsciously, whence its hardness, transparency and luminosity; the spiritually great man, who stands at the summit of the human species, integrates the whole of existence in his knowledge, therefore in an active and conscious manner, whence his universality.”
from The Transcendent Unity of Religions
that passage helps to explain the following one...
“Animals that reflect the quality of goodness are static and peaceful: the Indian ox, with its uneven back and its horns forming a semicircle, calls to mind snowy ridges above which rises the solar disc; the beauty of its eyes adds a sort of contemplative sweetness to this picture. The sheep, the dove, and the swan are quasi-paradisaical because of their innocent and peaceful nature; the white color adds a quality of celestial purity.
The bison and camel incarnate the mountain but more especially its “earthly” aspect: the bison its massive, fearsome, hostile aspect, and the camel its patient, contemplative, priestly aspect. The bear also manifests an aspect of “earth” in its heaviness and unpredictability.
Animals having a dynamic symbolism incarnate a celestial aspect that is awe-inspiring but also at a lower level a passional aspect: the tiger is cosmic fire in all its rage and splendor; like fire it is terrible and pure. The lion is solar: the passional aspect is here neutralised by a kind of royal serenity; like the eagle – which in its own order manifests the principle of lightning – the lion in its own fashion expresses the force of the spirit.
The lowest animal species, those that repel us, manifest most directly the quality of ignorance; they are repugnant to us bceause they are like “living or conscious matter” whereas the law of matter is precisely unconsciousness. Monkeys shock us for the opposite reason, that is, because they are like men who have been deprived of the central consciousness that characterises mankind; they are not “conscious matter” but consciousness decentralized, dissipated. On the other hand there exist higher animals that possess an inferior “spiritual” form, and conversely: man does not like either swine or hyenas but feels no antipathy towards such insects as bees, butterflies, or ladybirds.”
from Spiritual Perspectives and Human Facts
So you see it is not difficult to explain the diversity of life and indeed all phenomena with recourse to metaphysics and traditional symbolism. The reason why such explanations will not be accepted is because people only want an explanation which does not involve supra-sensible reality as this categorically denied by modern thought.
It is not dogmatic as a long as it doesn't become a religion itself, as long as it is open to criticism. A lot of traditionalists embrace Schuon, Guenon and Coomaraswamy as part of their clubhouse, and embrace anti-evolutionism even when the arguments exposed by them against evolutionary theory are not very good.
The first sentence here should then be applied to both arguments, too often this is not the case. As for the accusations of a clubhouse mentality, it's not really relevant to the discussion, which should be about what is true rather than who said what.