cdesign proponentists

[PeterMaclellan]

During the Kitsmiller v Dover school board trial wherein the parents of several children of a Dover public school sued to prevent a statement about ID being read in science class, all drafts of the lead ID textbook "Of Panda's and People" were subpoenaed. What was found that until 1987, when it was ruled unconstitutional to teach creationism in science class, Of Panda's and People used the term "Creationists" and "Creationism" instead of "Intelligent Design Proponents" and "Intelligent Design" respectively. However in drafts of the book produced after 1987, all reference to Creationism was replaced via selective text editing to either Intelligent Design or Design proponent. However in the first text produced post 1987, they made a mistake and failed to fully replace the word creationists, leading to the creation of "cdesign proponentists"

This is clearly the missing link in the evolution from Creationist to Design Proponent.

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”


Both creationists and Intelligent Design proponents were quick to point out that the discovery had created two new gaps between the two movements.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html

 

[TeddyKGB]

The "cdesign proponentist" revelation in the Dover trial is what I call a "Matlock moment" - an event that makes the opposition look so inept, so guilty that they confess right then. It's notable because it's so rare; trials almost never have shocking or surprising moments.

 

[uberd00b]

This was great. It's both hilarious and extremely damaging to the cdesign propentsists cause as it illustrates just how dishonest their position is.

The fact of the matter is, creationists pwn themselves every single time.

 

[RedAndy]

I bet someone got fired for that.