Difference between revisions of "Cdesign proponentsists"
(merge) |
RebeccaC25 (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | The term "'''cdesign proponentsists'''" came into vogue use by evolutionists during and after the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial in [[Pennsylvania]] over the legitimacy of intelligent design as a science. A crucial piece of the defense (Pro-intelligent design) was a book called [[Of Pandas and People]], 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 words "creationist," "creationism" and other similar words and phrases in place of every use of the words "intelligent design" and similar words and phrases in later editions. In a single, isolated case, it was shown that the word "creationists" had been partially replaced with "design proponents," strangely resulting in "cdesign proponentsists". [[John E. Jones III]]'s verdict was that intelligent design was the same as creationism and that Dover School Board's attempt to allow it to be taught in schools violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.<ref>[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> | |
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{reflist|1}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[category:law]] | ||
Revision as of 21:41, September 27, 2008
The term "cdesign proponentsists" came into vogue use by evolutionists during and after the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in Pennsylvania over the legitimacy of intelligent design as a science. A crucial piece of the defense (Pro-intelligent design) was a book called Of Pandas and People, 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 words "creationist," "creationism" and other similar words and phrases in place of every use of the words "intelligent design" and similar words and phrases in later editions. In a single, isolated case, it was shown that the word "creationists" had been partially replaced with "design proponents," strangely resulting in "cdesign proponentsists". John E. Jones III's verdict was that intelligent design was the same as creationism and that Dover School Board's attempt to allow it to be taught in schools violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.[1]
