I don't understand what you are saying here.
Your many hours investigating the claims of the ID movement mean as much as my hours of investigating the claims of Darwinism. It's our mindset that influences us regarding what data/arguments we tend to embrace.
"In the beginning god created...."
ID is nothing more than Gen.1:1 dressed up in pseudoscience.
Oversimplification, way too easy. Show me the verses and their context in ID articles that are used as core argument for their conclusions.
See Dover v Kitzmiller for an expose of the dishonesty of ID
I did, not impressive (although I admit Behe could've done better). But hey, WT also won a few court cases in the past, and what does that tell about their doctrine in detail? Not very much...
In turn, did you see these for an expose of some dishonesty of Dover v Kitzmiller? I'm not pushing you to give vent to some more scepticism towards evolution, but you use the word "fact" a lot. It's not always black or white Cofty (like: evolution is correct, otherwise you're uneducated/intellectual dishonest), there's still a lot of grey (gaps/contradictions) when it comes to things like macro-evolution and universal common descent. What about a more modest "We still don't really know" or "Not enough empirical evidence yet"?