Answering: “If evolutionists get "creationists" from gibberish like "cdesign proponentsists", how can we trust them to use scientific evidence reasonably?”
For reference, the question is based on the Dover ID Trial of 2005 - the eleventh anniversary of the end of that trial is in four days. Merry Kitzmas, everyone!
At the heart of the trial was an Intelligent Design textbook, Of Pandas and People. The earliest versions of this book used the word “creationist” and later versions used the words “design proponent”. Sometime in 1987, US courts ruled that teaching creationism was a form of promoting religion and so could not be told. Here is the relevant portion of the book from before that trial (images of text from Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial):
Soon after that trial:
Later versions had the error fixed and read, “…….former is correct, design proponents accept the latter view…”
In direct response (but not exactly answer)to the question, the conclusion from the evidence seems warranted. Getting “creationists” from “cdesign proponentists” is indeed silly. But seeing that the word used in earlier copies was ‘creationist’, the word used in recent copies was ‘design proponent’ and “cdesign proponentists” was used in between really supports the conclusion that the “c” and the “ists” were from “creationists”.
These transcripts from the trial ( July 14 Hearing: Jon A. Buell )show the publisher of the book, Jon Buell, explaining that the company is not Christian based company. However, the plaintiff lawyers then shared the IRS charitable tax exemption. From the transcript:
Q And if you go about 60 percent down the page, there's an entry for Statement of Organization's Primary Exempt Purpose.
Q Is it your testimony that that's also an inaccurate submission?
A It was boilerplate that the attorney that was helping us become established used. I felt that it was inappropriate. He said we need to be clear in identifying yourself as having a genuine nonprofit purpose, and so the language that originated with me is the phrase, "but is not limited to."
A Yes, most of it, I think nearly all of it, possibly all of it.
Q So the accountant got it wrong and the attorney got it wrong?
That Christian publishers chose to publish the book does not make it creationist but that they lied - and they either lied about being Christian for tax reasons or they lied when they claimed not to be Christians -must show they were hiding something. On its own, maybe the publisher was only guilty of tax fraud (and incorporation statement fraud, if that is a thing), but when added to the changes in the book, it appears they were hiding its creationist origins.
To the person who posted the question, I have two of my own. How can you trust the authors and publishers of the book considering their dishonesty? And how is the ‘cdesign proponentists” = ‘creationists” conclusion unreasonable?