Changes

The smear 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.  

The smear 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 minor 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".

A trial exhibit 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".

The presentation of this information was regarded as inherently deceitful, as the litigants failed to mention that the change was made during a long process of adapting areligious elements from creationist sources into the new book, not a mere rebranding. The book's editor, Charles Thaxton<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html ''Response to Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Account Part V: Phillip Johnson and Of Pandas and People'', Evolution News & Views]</ref>:

The presentation of this information was regarded as inherently deceitful, as the litigants failed to mention that the change was made during a long process of adapting areligious elements from creationist sources into the new book, not a mere rebranding. The book's editor, Charles Thaxton<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html ''Response to Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Account Part V: Phillip Johnson and Of Pandas and People'', Evolution News & Views]</ref>: