It’s been a couple of hours now, so I’m hoping you are feeling less tense and anxious. I have picked out 4 parts of one of your longer posts and I thought you’d appreciate a little feedback on what you write and how you write it.
Point  You have accused BioLogos of dishonesty. And your evidence is apparently because Ted Davis and Venema (you say) called William Lane Craig a ‘creationist’. So what else would any of us call him?
Especially when in Point  you say he does not bow before Darwin. Well, ahem, sir, what else would you have him called then? The usual polarity is Atheistic Darwinists on one side of the room… and Faithful Devoted Creationists on the other side. I don’t think you have made your point about your accusations of dishonesty. So, I should give you advance notice that I’m perfectly delighted to flag a post when I think the post is dissembling or prevaricating. You will need to be more precise in the future.
Point  is where you cite Dennett, sometimes called one of the 4 Horsemen of modern Atheism, and attempt to taint BioLogos with his Atheistic attitudes. This is an unfair charge, but in this case you were careful to make it into more of an anecdote. I hope you have it out of your system now … because I will be reading your posts fairly closely from now on.
And finally, Point , where you are either very unaware of BioLogos’s Mission Statements, or you are just being belligerent. BioLogos invokes the name and reality of God throughout its discussion and research on the Evolutionary sciences. It is no more Atheistic than a Christian weather forecaster talking about warm fronts and cold fronts and the providential nature of God to provide rain.
If you need someone to discuss the BioLogos Mission Statements please ask. For I will definitely report any repetition of your charges of Atheism to the administrators of these boards. You can’t walk into a Synagogue and call the Rabbi’s atheists … and you can’t do it here either.