However, explain to me why it damages the presentation of the theory of evolution to suggest that there may be a Creator?

It doesn’t. What damages the presentation of evolutionary theory as science is the suggestion that the arguments of anti-evolutionists have any scientific merit. They don’t. Some of them never did. Others did once, but not any more. The last sensible objection to evolutionary theory was demolished forty years ago when geneticists started unraveling the secrets of DNA, and microbiologists started exploring the hidden world of the cell. The only possible scientific use for anti-evolutionists’ claims would be as a roadmap for how to teach evolutionary theory. That is, many of the questions raised by anti-evolutionists are valid: they’re the questions evolutionary theory had to answer in order to be accepted. Showing how the theory answered those questions would be a good way to teach the theory in the classroom.

But that’s not what the anti-evolutionists want. They don’t want students to get the answers evolutionary theory provides to those questions. They want students to be taught that evolutionary theory can’t answer their questions … with an attendant implication that creationism is a scientifically valid alternative. And that’s simply wrong.

However, explain to me why it damages the presentation of the theory of evolution to suggest that there may be a Creator?

What I find interesting is that many who argue the evolutionist side base their position primarily on an anti-theistic view and simply base what they know on reading some books and listening to some experts (which is precisely how most anti-evolutionists reach their positions). Now, one can argue over the quality of the experts, but there are some clear parallels here–and it often comes down to belief on both sides.

A fair point. Indeed, there are evolution-defenders who are as you describe — too many of them, if you ask me. However, there are also plenty of evolution-defenders who don’t just “read some books and listen to some experts.” Many evolution-defenders are themselves career scientists or college science professors. Many more are interested amateurs — interested enough to learn the subject so thoroughly that even career scientists and professors consider them experts. These people don’t believe evolutionary theory and reject ID because somebody else told them to. They believe the one and reject the other because they’ve seen the original evidence up close and personal, and the evidence says “evolution happened.”

That is the funniest line I’ve read all week.

Education schools make this worse - they aren’t taught by experts in subject matter, they are taught by people who were taught by people who were taught by experts in subject matter, so the subject matter taught is often out of date. Even the teaching methods taught tend to be based on theory that lags about 20 years or more behind the state of the art in psychology, content lags even further behind.