Feminist scholar discovers Gender Theory and Intelligent Design have much in common

Feminist scholar discovers Gender Theory and Intelligent Design have much in common.

I had to smile at this one and wonder what Michael Behe and the rest make of it. Maybe the Discovery Inst will take on Gender studies !!

I smile at the idea of “the bid to inject ethical parameters into scientific endeavors”. Not that ID is very ethical in its unbaised (not) assessment of evolution.

I give only the abstract as I am to mean to pay $10 for the article

I got this from @RealPeerReview on twitter, my source for a conceptual penis etc

 

Publication Cover

Signs

Journal of Women in Culture and Society

The Sexual Politics of Intelligent Design

Sharon Woodill
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
Mount Saint Vincent University
Abstract

Intelligent design is creationism for the twenty-first century. It is the view that the natural world is best explained as the product of an intentional intelligent agent rather than undirected natural forces. Although there has been much ado about its scientific status, beyond the scientific face of intelligent design is a dense discourse that brings a compelling aspect into full relief. Intelligent design is a political movement that embodies aggressive and regressive sexual politics. This article suggests that, motivated by the belief that evolutionary thought has spurred moral decay, intelligent-design advocates have compiled a sophisticated critique of science in general and evolutionary science specifically, and they have proposed intelligent design as an alternative. This critique of science is comparable to some feminist critiques that challenge traditional definitions of science as an unbiased arbiter of truth. Both camps highlight and challenge the ways in which social values infiltrate scientific knowledge, and both seek to instantiate political values into the scientific enterprise as a means of redressing problematic politics and ultimately improving science. It would be a mistake, however, to position feminism and intelligent design as natural allies. When intelligent design is examined more broadly, one finds a set of sexual politics that are antithetical to feminist politics but similar to the politics that feminists have identified in mainstream science. It would also be a mistake to presume that feminism and intelligent design are equal counterparts in the bid to inject ethical parameters into scientific endeavors. Proponents of intelligent design argue that natural law (as defined within intelligent-design discourse) determines the limits of morality, which can be discerned by noting what “works” and what does not. With this, its own criterion, intelligent design fails to substantiate the regressive sexual politics it attempts to rationalize. By extension, the intelligent-design movement itself warrants resistance.

 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/685478

Advertisements

One thought on “Feminist scholar discovers Gender Theory and Intelligent Design have much in common

  1. Paul Braterman

    This is a very worst argument I have seen against (and the author clearly is against) Intelligent Design.

    “Proponents of intelligent design argue that natural law (as defined within intelligent-design discourse) determines the limits of morality, which can be discerned by noting what “works” and what does not. With this, its own criterion, intelligent design fails to substantiate the regressive sexual politics it attempts to rationalize. By extension, the intelligent-design movement itself warrants resistance.”

    The very opposite is the case. The entire programme of Intelligent Design is built around the claim that the undirected operation of natural law would not suffice to explain evolution, whence it follows that a Designer has intervened, either to make evolution happen (Behe-ism), or to bypass evolution by special creation (the unstated position of most ID advocates). Furthermore, Intelligent Design proponents argue that an advantage of their position is that it places the Fountainhead of Morality at the heart of scientific explanation.

    If anyone believes that morality “can be discerned by noting what ‘works’ and what that’s not”, that would have to be naive primitive Darwinists ignorant both of population genetics, and of Hume’s distinction between “is” and “ought”. If such creatures ever existed, they surely became extinct many decades ago.

    Worryingly, I see is that the journal where this appeared is published by University of Chicago Press. So I fear it will not do to blame the successful publication of the “conceptual penis” paper on the predatory practices of a commercial publisher.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s