The essential question being asked here is whether it is acceptable for a moderator to edit your question.
The short answer to that is: Yes, it is acceptable for anyone to edit your question. Following the Wikipedia collaborative editing model, we recommend that people "be bold" in making edits.
The FAQ states:
If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.
Obviously, we also expect edits to be made in a good faith attempt to improve it and with respect to the original meaning of the question, or they will be quickly reverted. You can rollback the changes the others have made too (although getting into an "edit war" with mindless reverts back and forth will be stomped on quickly; it doesn't help anyone.)
(It is also worth noting that it requires a "trusted user" to be involved in the editing process. Low ranked users need to have their changes approved by higher ranked users. However, that is much broader than merely moderators.)
As Sklivvz and the commenters have pointed out, the original question itself wasn't great in terms of being objectively answerable.
The timing of the question was offensive too. That, in itself, should not be considered sufficient to close a question. (After all, a lot of people find their beliefs being challenged by evidence upsetting.)
Combining the two together, however, it isn't too surprising that some readers drew the conclusion that you were being deliberately provocative, rather than seeking a real answer to a question.
Under such a conclusion, the disclaimer wasn't helping, but just forming part of the troll. I think the mental reaction was similar to the common reaction to the phrase "I'm not a racist, but..." - it causes many people to roll their eyes.
To be honest, this meta-question isn't really helping your claim of not being deliberately provocative. A better plan of action to convince people that your question is worthy of a response is to edit the question so that it is answerable (or to delete the question entirely).
[As your implied definition of "innovator" currently stands, virtually nobody can be called an innovator as most inventions are merely built upon other inventions. That definition is not how the term is commonly understood.]