I see while others have addressed the topic at hand, you remain fixated on me as the topic. Whatever....
If you state that "my personal authority" carries "no logical weight" in the argument, while simultaneously knowing that I have been providing supporting evidence throughout this entire conversation for each of my conclusions, then what you are attempting is to discredit my conclusions by attacking me rather than my evidence. And that is the essence of an ad hominem attack. Therefore, I didn't "see" it as an ad hominem attack. It was an ad hominem attack, and I merely acknowledged the fact.
Does speaking as a self designated personal authority on evolution carry logical weight necessarily? I don't agree that it was an ad hominem attack all, as it was not personal in nature from my perspective. I was just suggesting that when statements are made of an authortative platform, there is no logic in that necessarily. It was the lack of evidence and deference to statement that I see. I have not questioned the evidence, I question the conclusion you have reached in applying the evidence to a theory that suggests random chance development of all of the variety of species we see.
We're not talking about what "many" will argue. We're talking about science and scientific proof. And, as previously stated, an argument is nothing more than an unsupported observation until it is actually tested. So, the "many" can argue whatever they want. But if you want black magic in the classroom, then you will need to convince a court of law that this isn't an establishment of religion. Until you do, there will only be science in science class. And, you may well succeed. But, it will be the beginning of a new Dark Ages, in my humble opinion.
As I just pointed out, I have provided evidence throughout this conversation, so I am not speaking as a self designated personal authority on evolution. I am arguing the science for the evidence provided. On the other hand, does speaking as a self designated personal authority for God, carry logical weight necessarily? After all, you're not providing any evidence other than the weight of your own personal opinion. So, if anyone's operating in the realm of "argument from authority," that someone is almost certainly you.
Speaking of God carries no logical weight on its own, however when near 90% of the people of a society do speak of their belief in God it does lend some credibility that the belief may have something very real behind it to have sustained it. I don't want to make my beliefs the logical reason to teach ID or not, I want to show that it is reasonable to infer and argue from logical induction that the probability that all of biological organisms are the consequence of random events of minute changes is not as probable as the likelihood that these organisms are by design.
Already did that in this thread. Multiple identical retroviral insertions in the germ line of all related primate species. In order for this to have occured by chance, simulataneously in gibbons, chimps, gorillas, orangatans and old world monkeys, the same infecting viruses would have had to attack all of these creatures at the same exact locus within their genome, multiple times throughout the millions of years of their existence. Once again, this would be the equivalent of dropping a handful of darts from an airplane on a half dozen rolls of toilet paper strung out 32,000 football fields in length, with the gene sequences marked off in millimeter increments, and having the darts strike every roll of paper in exactly the same multiple locations. And, if you believe that is exactly what happened, then I can see why you believe in magic, because nothing less than magic could have caused such an outcome.
I see. Of course, that logic would have to apply for the overwhelming majority of scientists who find evolution to be the correct explanation of the development of life on Earth, now wouldn't it? But, on the more logical side, what the majority thinks is true has never been the hallmark of what actually is true. If it were, then the Earth would still be flat. So, the point is that you are attempting to attack me rather than my argument, and I'm asking you to stop.