Your sources are conspiracy web sites of no scientific value. Media Bias rates this source as a "Strong conspiracy website based on promoting biblical verses as science. We also rate them low for factual reporting for the same reason."

@JD, my source is actually this answer (posted 6 hours ago), which in turn has its own sources, sure.

Please do not copy fundamentalist cultist propaganda to philosophy forums. Those are barely tolerable in a Christianity forum, but have no place outside it. If you feel like it's a good answer, just leave philosophy and join a cult, if that's your thing. It's as inappropriate and offensive as copying answers from Islam Stackexchange about how homosexuality is a disease.

These claims are overwhelmingly false.

@tkruse: "If you feel like it's a good answer, just leave philosophy and join a cult, if that's your thing." Actually I was interested to see the peer-review that answer would have received here. This is turning out to be an insightful social experiment, if you will.

@tkruse: I also literally cited the source at the beginning of the post, so I fail to see how this is a case of plagiarism. Literally the whole answer is inside a quotation block.

@tkruse: I disagree. The meta-question adds a qualification: "without citing them". That's not the case here, because I did cite the source.

@Mark you may wish to join the chat chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/63737858#63737858

@tkruse While roughly every part of this answer is somewhere between entirely false and completely unjustified... don't equate this misinformation to something that directly leads to harassment and violence towards a group of people for how they were born.

"It's opponents think it isn't, but are no less biased" - opponents of ID may be biased ... towards having justified beliefs. Consistently applying scientific methods and following science wherever it leads is not all that comparable to trying to fit science around a core unjustified belief. Young-Earth creationists need to bend over backwards to try to explain why we shouldn't interpret things like radiometric dating in the most reasonable way and that actually it's completely different from what it seems like. There's a 0% chance that anyone would conclude young-Earth based on science alone.

@NotThatGuy I think you should be posting those comments directly under Matthew's answer on the Christianity site.

@Mark Maybe, but I try to limit my comments on the Christianity site, given the general opposition to facts and reason that users and mods on that site seem to have (especially the user in question, who's also frequently actively hostile when encountering any disagreement).

@NotThatGuy I think you might be interested in this question: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/99719/66156

One thing I don't understand about this answer is the repeated mentions of "materialism" as though it's the antithesis to belief in intelligent design. While that's consistent with the "wedge document" mentioned in another answer, it doesn't seem to actually make sense. The answer asks us to consider a bicycle. Is the designer of the bicycle not made of matter? What difference does it make? "Naturalistic" has the same problem. However it's defined, I don't see how "humans evolved and then made the bicycle" could fail to qualify as a naturalistic explanation. Is that not intelligent design?

"I think you should be posting those comments directly under Matthew's answer on the Christianity site" - and that's why copying and posting answers is a bad idea. Don't post answers you don't yourself agree with and are willing to defend or modify in response to comments.

Let me know if I should address the many, many problems in this answer line-by-line (probably in chat rather than in comments). Pretty much all of this is very clearly wrong, as already noted, but I wouldn't want to waste my time detailing exactly how unless there's a specific interest. The answer could arguably be described as a Gish gallop, in that it's making so many false claims, that one can't succinctly counter even a fraction of that (especially in comments, where word count is limited and discussion is discouraged).

@NotThatGuy By all means feel free to do so. You might want to take advantage of an existing chatroom for holding that type of discussion though. There is a chatroom for discussing creationism vs. naturalism (and anything in between) on the Christianity site: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134852. Please let me know if you decide to participate -- I would be interested in being an spectator of that debate.

@Mark I'm still not all that inclined to discuss that on Christianity or in one of their chat rooms, for reasons already mentioned. My objections wouldn't exactly be novel. Many people have been pointing out these problems for as long as people have been trying to make these arguments, and I have also specifically made a number of similar points on their site and in their chat rooms, including quite a few addressed to the user in question specifically.

The only reason I'm even acknowledging the existence of that answer at all is because you reposted it on Philosophy. I may not be able to do much about them from spreading misinformation within their site, but I can try to limit its spread. I'll just address it here:

@NotThatGuy Should I let Matthew know about these rebuttals?

Update: I just did.