[Aquinasfan]

They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.

Wouldn't be surprising. I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

[narby]

I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

That's because you relied on a few religious sources rather than scientific sources. Religion and science are two entirely different ways of looking at the universe. The Catholic church understands that, and they have chosen not to confront science, after their disaster of Galileo. Todays' crop of IDers haven't yet discovered how badly they are shooting themselves in the foot over this. But they will.

[RogueIsland]

I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

Missed that whole "Theory" part in "Theory of Evolution", eh?

[Stultis]

I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

I used to believe that antievolutionists might be advancing some valid and valuable criticisms, until I took several antievolution tomes and spent several weeks in a good academic library chasing out the footnotes. (Francis Hitchings The Neck of the Giraffe, Duane Gish's Evolution? The Fossils Say No and Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism, as well as a number of other antievolution works caught up by incestuous footnoting.) The level of dishonesty, and the universal toleration of it within the antievolution movement, was, and remains, shocking.