Or Charles Darwin, who, tasked to gather the evidence to confirm one of the Genesis creation stories, instead went where the evidence led. Or Albert Einstein in 1905. Or Niels Bohr on non-locality.

Yes I agree these would be individuals who's emotional commitments inclined them to follow the evidence where it led.

Overall, I find it interesting that one can take D'Amasio's work to conclude that D'Amasio's methods and the foundations of his science are in error "” or are you making a case against ID here, ultimately?

I think you missed the point Damasio was making. What he was saying is that the biological systems that create body states (emotions) have a great influence on how we determine what is "bad" and "good" for us. The good/bad orientation is not only instinctive but also learned. Surely this makes sense for rational thinking because irrational or unreasonable thought can get one in a lot of trouble. Whereas for early humans being irrational could be life threaten today one can get away with bad judgement in a lot of cases because it does not put one at physical risk. The point is that being rational does not just entail good logic. It also requires judgement. What Damasio's research showed is that a good part of judgement and bias comes from preconfigured or learned emotive states. Those prior emotive dispositions bias one's decision making process with the goal of "protection" or "promotion". As Damasio states in the citation I offered, emotions assist "cool" reason but they can also taint it. The real question in evaluating a set of arguments is what emotional commitments have been engendered in the individual. These will tend to bias that person to a particular position. Whether or not they are able to overcome that bias depends on whether or not there are other emotional biases that come into play. As any therapist will tell you, the emotional matrix of an individual is vast. Just the experience of ambivalence shows that there are multiple emotions at work.

In this respect one thinks of individuals who, unlike ideologues, apparently have a bias towards truth seeking and following the evidence or logic wherever it leads. I immediately think of examples like Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Or Charles Darwin, who, tasked to gather the evidence to confirm one of the Genesis creation stories, instead went where the evidence led. Or Albert Einstein in 1905. Or Niels Bohr on non-locality.

Overall, I find it interesting that one can take D'Amasio's work to conclude that D'Amasio's methods and the foundations of his science are in error — or are you making a case against ID here, ultimately?

For me it was one of those books where the bookmarks, margin scribblings, and underlyings appear almost everywhere. I'm sure you've got some books like that too. Happy reading!