From the Nova special last week on the Dover trials, it was shown that in an early draft of “Of Pandas and People” (the ID-friendly “biology” textbook from the Discovery Institute) there was a slip up in one of the edits where “cdesign proponentsists” where mentioned (as a change from “creationists” to “design proponents”). This was one of the key pieces of evidence that ID was just religious creationism relabelled.
Now the definition has shown up on UrbanDictionary.com as follows:
The missing link between “creationists” and “design proponents”, as used in the textbook Of Pandas and People. Used to refer to creationist dumbfucks who are all to generally confused by science theology or even common sense.
Science says man evolved from other apes. Cdesign proponentsists say apes smell and prefer the scientific explanation “Goddidit”.
WordPress
Facebook
Google +
I proponentsistized csomething once, but I got over it.
Science does not say that man evolved from apes. Evoultion says that man evolved from apes. Science is not evolution. !)avid
But evolution is accepted science, learn to deal.
well aside from the fact that evolution is not universally accepted and is still by all practical explanation at BEST a THEORY! then I see no reason to follow the flow of sewage coming out of the public school system when a large portion of science(implausibility of abiogenesis, irreducible complexity,the fact that evolution has no PLAUSIBLE explanation for the origin of life,etc…) so I will not consider evolution accepted science and neither do these people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signatories_to_%22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism%22
along with approximately 376 other scientists that have since signed it as well. !)avid