Difference between revisions of "Cdesign proponentsists"
(This stuff should have cited references) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→References: clean up) |
||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''cdesign proponentsists''' | + | 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 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 book's editor, Charles Thaxton, said that the change was made during a long process of adapting areligious elements from creationist sources into the new book, not a mere rebranding:<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> | ||
| + | <blockquote>"I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there."</blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[John E. Jones III]]'s widely condemned 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{reflist|1}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Law]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:32, June 23, 2016
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 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 book's editor, Charles Thaxton, said that the change was made during a long process of adapting areligious elements from creationist sources into the new book, not a mere rebranding:[1]
"I wasnât comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didnât express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there."
John E. Jones III's widely condemned 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.[2]