Talk:Cdesign proponentsists

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

cdesign proponentsists is described as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design. The term came into being during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in Pennsylvania over the legitimacy of intelligent design as a science vs that of evolution. A crucial piece of the defense (Pro-intelligent design) was a book called Of Pandas and People which was marketed as a science textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous copies of the book were subpoenaed for review. It was discovered that previous versions of the book had the word creationist or creationism or some form of the term in replace of every use of the words intelligent design. In one of the most solid bits of evidence against intelligent design, it was shown where an editor lazily copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists" but had not even done a proper job resulting in "cdesign proponentsists". This evidence and more lead to John E. Jones III's verdict that Intelligent design was the same as creationism and that the ID movement was an subversive attempt to inject creationism into the classroom. Creationism had been banned by the Supreme Court in an earlier ruling.

This can go back on when it has references. --Ben Talk 18:23, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Is the "" blog really a credible source? Bohdan 23:36, 4 February 2008 (EST)
There's a misspelling in the graph they use. I know it's an ad hominem argument, but shouldn't they proofread a little better if they are themselves trying to use a proofreading error as proof of something? HelpJazz 23:38, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Ouch. Ad hom. Bohdan 23:39, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Oh, I'm sorry, I'll look for a better source. The NOVA documentary "Intelligent Design on Trial" covers all the information in much more detail but I am unsure how to reference a video. Also, it's not a typo, it was left without a suffix to include creationism and creationist and other variants.--Gman2 23:42, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I don't know how to reference a video here either. Maybe try asking User:HelpJazz? Bohdan 23:46, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I didn't catch that, Gman. (They could have done Creationis* or Creationist/m or something, but I digress). Are you referencing a link to a video, or the video itself? I'm not really sure what the proper notation is for videos. My uneducated guess would be Intelligent Design on Trial, NOVA. Public Broadcasting Service. Origonal airdate XXX.
Ask Bohdan, he's been editing wikis longer than I :) HelpJazz 23:56, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I don't think there is a policy on how its done. And you have more contributions than me, but where is the vandal counter on your userpage? I was going to add one... Bohdan 00:01, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Oh I am good. According to this, if we cite using MLA style (which is good enough for me) it should be "Intelligent Design on Trial". NOVA. [Call Letters] Public Broadcasting Service. [Call letters of local station, City of local station]. [Date]. HelpJazz 00:02, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Does CP use the MLA? Real encyclopedia wiki editors use the Chicago manual of style. Bohdan 00:06, 5 February 2008 (EST)
I can't find a TV citation for Chicago :'( HelpJazz 00:17, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Perhaps you should change "Oh I am good" to "Oh I am just OK" :) Bohdan 00:19, 5 February 2008 (EST)
No, I'm still good... just at MLA. My first post was a random guess, and it was darn close to the real thing. Every source I found with Chicago citation told me to go to MLA or APA to cite a TV show, so maybe it's Chicago that's just OK. Ever think about that? Huh? Huh? HelpJazz 00:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Regardless of the merits of The Panda's Thumb, its article is not a serious article, and this Conservapedia article makes quite a few claims that are not even in that source. I've removed the most blatant of them, but I wonder about some of the remaining ones. Philip J. Rayment 00:51, 5 February 2008 (EST)

It's interesting to note that the term "cdesign proponentsists" doesn't even appear in Jones' ruling, contrary to what the previous version I just edited today asserted. Gotta keep an eye on these liberal editors. Jinxmchue 13:22, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

The previous version did not say that the term appeared in Jones' ruling, just that the term influenced his decision. But I do like your changes. Philip J. Rayment 23:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps I should've said that the previous version alluded to it. In any case, thanks. Jinxmchue 23:59, 21 May 2008 (EDT)


I recommend that this be merged, as it is not much of an article as it stands, and I susspect that the likelihood of this being searched for is very very low. -DrSandstone 17:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Evolutionists love this term. We should try to get it high on the Google search results. Jinxmchue 22:25, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't think that's a really good reason to make policy decisions.
This page was merged at one point, then RebeccaC25 unmerged it without explanation. She has since been blocked for being a sock of a blocked user. HelpJazz 13:23, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I think this article should stay. Philip J. Rayment 21:45, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
To revive the debate, why? It seems to be a rather obscure, esoteric term, and a mockery of creation science. Is it of value or note? - Rod Weathers 11:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)
The origin of the term was apparently quite important in the Dover ID case, so the term is of some note. It doesn't help anyone ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist. Philip J. Rayment 20:38, 10 December 2008 (EST)