I think it can be fair to identify what we see as implications of what someone says which they might not like, or which we see as involving self-contradictions, but we should never present those as things they have actually asserted, which I think is what you mean there. That does happen quite a lot - it's a very common debating trick.

Fine. But you omitted to say that you were also being provocative and mischievous. You suggested that my not wishing to gainsay Charles Darwin somehow had religious overtones. It was a stupid remark which had no connection with my real feelings on the matter, which you know only too well. You were misrepresenting me in that, by saying what I did, I was simply trying to remain accurate in the scientific sense, but, for my sins, I attracted a stupid comment from you and a hefty dose of brainless camp-following from pete and Snail. And you wonder why people get narked when they're misrepresented. Cheers!