While I was slumming over at Dembski’s blog I cam across a link to this article, by right-wing superhack David Horowitz. Apparently Dembski’s crew thought this little essay was helpful to the cause.
Horowitz is discussing the horrors perpetrated by Women’s Studies Departments in the name of “Social Constructivism:”
A year ago the biggest issue in education after budgets was whether “Intelligent Design” should be taught in the nation’s schools. Opponents called it a form of “creationism” and the press dubbed the ensuing legal battle as the biggest clash between faith and science since the Scopes Monkey Trial. In a stinging rebuke to the religious right, a Pennsylvania judge ruled that “Intelligent Design” had no place in classrooms because it was “a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” thus violating the separation of church and state.
Yet at that very moment professors in American universities were teaching a form of secular creationism as contrary to the findings of modern science as the Biblical claim that the God had made the world in seven days.
The name of this theory is “social constructionism,” and its churches are Women’s Studies departments situated in universities across the United States. The feminist theory of social construction maintains that the differences between men and women – apart from obvious anatomical ones — are not biologically determined but are created by a patriarchal social structure that is designed by men to oppress women. It is “patriarchal society” that turns naturally bi-sexual infants into male and female personalities by conditioning them from birth to adopt gender roles — the one aggressive, masculine and destined to command, the other passive, feminine and slated to obey.
I have no particular opinion on the merits of the literature on women’s studies. I have not read any of it. Horowitz is well-known for being a dishonest charlatan and his description here sounds like a caricature. On the other hand, I’ve heard people more respectable than Horowitz level the same charges.
The reason I linked to the post, however, was for its title: “Secular Creationism.”
Think about that for a second. Horowitz is writing about a theory that in his judgment is utterly absurd. It is contradicted by the evidence and defended only by a handful of dogmatic authoritarians. It represents the absolute worst of modern academic scholarship.
And when he goes hunting around for a metaphor to make it clear precisely how awful these Women’s Studies Departments are, when he wants to communicate the full horror of what is going on, when he wants to liken it to something so obviously abominable that no one could miss the point, what does he come up with?
Just one more example that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
And one more example that Dembski and Co. just don’t think things through very well.