[rob777]

It really makes no difference where the ID "movement's" roots are in evaluating the substance of their argument. When are we going to learn that an ad hominem argument is not logically valid.

[Right Wing Professor]

When are we going to learn that an ad hominem argument is not logically valid.

What are we going to learn what 'ad hominem' means?

[Stultis]

It really makes no difference where the ID "movement's" roots are in evaluating the substance of their argument.

Yeah, but it makes a difference in evaluating the legal case, which requires (in part) that it be determined whether the endorsement of ID advances religion, or whether there is a religious purpose to the law rather than a valid secular purpose, etc.

[Stultis]

It really makes no difference where the ID "movement's" roots are in evaluating the substance of their argument.

Yeah, but it makes a difference in evaluating the legal case, which requires (in part) that it be determined whether the endorsement of ID advances religion, or whether there is a religious purpose to the law rather than a valid secular purpose, etc. (The point being that it doesn't violate the Constitution to teach somethings that's wrong or stupid. So if ID is only wrong or stupid, the courts have nothing to say about it.)