By use of terms such as "your adversary" to refer to a teacher, Colson demonstrates that his attack is on learning itself, not just on a particular part of science. Colson and the Creationists are just a cog in the great PostModernDeconstrunctionist attack on scientific inquiry as a means of gaining knowledge.
Not at all. To call Charles Colson a postmodern deconstructionist to stretch the term so that it has no meaning. Deconstruction as practiced by Derrida tries to expunge "the author" because he sees the assumed intentionality of written propositions as ultimately implying theism i.e. Logos-centrism, or as he calls it, logocentrism must be "deconstructed".
To hold that science is capable of making design inferences is not postmodernist or even skeptical about science--- if anything, it is overly optimistic about the potential of science.
Similarly, the concept that
1) the universe is the product of a rational mind so that 2) one may reasonably assume our own rational minds can understand the universe
comes out not just of Judeo-Christian faith in God, but from Enlightenment faith in reason. True or false, stupid or not, it's in no way, shape or form similar to the postmodernism the Sokal hoax displayed or any other sort.