MOTIVES STILL DON'T MATTER: REPLY TO PYNES

This paper continues a dialogue that began with an article by Jeffrey Koperski entitled “Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Good Ones,” published in the June 2008 issue of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science . In a response article, Christopher Pynes argues that ad hominem arguments are sometimes legitimate, especially when critiquing Intelligent Design (2012). We show that Pynes's examples only apply to matters of testimony , not the kinds of arguments found in the best defenses of ID.