huh. "so called first trimester of development"....sooooo the nine month development process that can be broken into three parts is some sort of liberal agenda of false naming????? Wonder where he got his PhD from. But, he does prove that having a PhD does not mean one can't make a complete ass of oneself.

A small penguin.

God's ways are mysterious. Who are you to question?

Maybe, in God's math, Nine can be divided into three equal parts that are of a different number than three.

He's all powerful, you know.

penguin - I have observed many times over the years that being educated does not make you smart - or, for that matter, able to use the education received!

After reading his article, I could sense there was something (actually a few things) wrong with his statements. But I could'nt pin it down.

In the comments, a poster going by "sawgunner" nails it: "As anyone who has observed human behavior for any length of time can attest, those who are insecure about their beliefs or positions tend to attack the personal integrity of their opponents. By drawing up such a bizarre example as this supposed sex happy evolutionist, Adams makes an attempt to discredit evolutionists as being morally corrupt, a debating technique sometimes called poisoning the well. Adams has adopted the methodology of the leftists he claims to hate; attack the person instead of debating the idea. Adams methodology displays a lack of conviction in his faith, and he is willing to adopt leftist tactics as a means to discredit and silence his opposition."

Since when is ad hominim a "leftist" attack? Seems to me it was around long before there were leftists, and the Puritans used it heavily in their libles against the monarchy.

I'm just saying, that's a funny thing to say.

And I've run into many an ad hominem being hurled into my face by right-wingers - recently while being (demonstrably falsely) accused of using an ad hominem myself. I don't take the ad hominem - or the false accusation thereof - as an indication that someone is necessarily a right-winger, but it does clearly indicate the lack of integrity of the person from whom it comes.

There ARE times when it is appropriate, for instance, if a person is upholding their personal moral system as the only certain and true moral system...and they are demonstrably immoral.

For instance, fundies claim that people cannot be moral with out worshipping God the right way. Yet there is ample proof that people who do not worship God as they do CAN be moral, and ample proof that people who DO worship God as they do can be immoral. If fact, there is little evidence that it makes a whit of difference one way or another.

So if someone say "I'm moral, live like me" and they are, say, hiring hookers and taking illegal drugs and lying about it, I would say that pointing out those facts is NOT adhominim, as their character is part of their argument and their behavior is in direct contradiction to their professed morality, and demonstrates thatit is ineffective at controlling their behavior.

However, Mr. Adams is responding to the idea that women should be able to control what happens to their own bodies with "You're all murderous sluts"!

Since the invocation of the right to control your own body also includes the right to say "no" to unwanted male advances, the right to say "yes" to wanted male advances, the right to make your own advances should you feel inclined, the right to insist on contraception, the right to have a doctor provide you with the best care for your individual health needs without the interferance of the law, the right to use physical force to defend your body from others, etc...

"You're all murderous sluts" isn't a sufficient argument.

Teresa,
Nice explanation of when it's not an ad hominem! I think you left out the right Mr. Adams is most pissed off about: the right to put myself, including my own happiness, above my unborn children.

Mark,
yeah. The fact that one has a degree in one area doesn't make one an expert in anything but that field, if that. I would think the university Mr.Adams is associated with would be appalled that he is using his credentials in such a way.

On attacks on personal integrity: I seem to recall that at one point it was a specified Republican Party tactic to use ad hominems and emotional arguments to distract the public from the issues and the facts. It may still be. I say it only as a historical comment, not as blame. Of course, this doesn't excuse all others on the spectrum from picking up tehg game and look at teh sad state of political discourse in America (I am not saying there was golden past, only that one would think all the education and information dissemination would have resulted in a higher level of public discourse, this blog excluded)