[JumpCrisscross]

> Definition of language is not up to you but society in the aggregate

Sure. The definition of propaganda OP uses is an internet niche one to mean any broadly-held (and thus disseminated) theory one disagrees with.

The argument against co-equal branches is a legitimate one. Calling the theory propaganda cheapens a real argument by making it look childish.

[coolkewlcuil]

propaganda /prŏp″ə-găn′də/

noun The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

...my use seems to fit the definition to me.

You are applying personal emotional bias to a very plain stated definition.

[JumpCrisscross]

> my use seems to fit the definition to me

Where is that definition from? It lacks key elements of the definition, notably, an agenda.

Your operating definition would turn the teaching of evolution (or frankly, any education or broadly-communicated message) into propaganda.

That isn’t a serious claim. If it is for someone, that person’s definition of propaganda isn’t the generally-accepted one, which means it’s unclear how they’re speaking about anything else. By being hyperbolic you’re getting downvoted and ignored.

> You are applying personal emotional bias

Nope. I’m explaining why a serious argument you’re making, one that deserves consideration, is being downvoted and ignored for being introduced with a thoroughly unserious assertion.