Sense the topic starter has chosen to go off on this rabbit trail, I will be quiet except when you start to claim you understand creation or ID. I have seen you do this before.
I've never seen you actually point out what you think is wrong and specifically correct it. You just assert it's wrong and think it's all settled after that.
Meanwhile I've caught Valor cold just making shit up about the history of evolutionary thought and its effect on Christianity during a particular time. He was talking about Darwin's theory of evolution in 1798 and didn't even have the decency to admit his error or re-evaluate and change his position when he was busted on it.
And this is the company you keep, this is the kind of behavior you defend. Or so it looks that way when you talk to me like this.
It means something when you've formed this opinion in your head about what something is, what happened in history, and it is all partly based on something that is not true. It's based on ignorance or misunderstanding of something. Now that in itself does not say anything negative about a person who does (all of us have done this sometime, somewhere, about some topic).
What you do when you receive knowledge that directly contradicts one of these bases that upholds your opinion is what matters. This is part of what determines who are and how you appear to other people. This is about integrity.
So Valor, when confronted with this new information about the history of evolution, instead of going "oops, my mistake" or "I'm going to sit here and rethink my position/statement," says something vague that only re-affirms his earlier statements, bulldozes onward with an unaltered position as if nothing had happened and he was still in the right.
I could never do this kind of thing. It's not who I am. I think you already know that much about me considering the ease with which I am bluntly honest to my fellow atheists, calling out all kinds of bullshit. Trying to keep us honest above all things. It would only make us stronger.
So if at any point you had ever actually corrected me in something I had assumed wrongly about Intelligent Design, I would have acknowledged it and altered my arguments to incorporate the new information. But you've yet to do this. A general assertion "you're just wrong" is insufficient; "you're wrong about this, and here's why" is what it needed.