Yes look at the definition.
Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby AN ARGUMENT IS REBUTTED by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, RATHER THAN ATTACKING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT ITSELF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I did not make any attacks on Ann’s character, motive, or other attribute, and in particular (and most relevant), I did not use any such comments to try and rebut her argument. I did not say “Ann is motivated by her desire for a historical Adam, so her bottleneck argument is wrong”, or anything like that. My comments were made specifically about your representation of Ann, not about Ann’s argument.
But I did not dismiss her argument based on her motives. I did not dismiss her argument at all. As I have said, I was addressing your representation of Ann, not Ann’s argument.
Yes all of this can be true. But my confidence in the integrity of her approach to scientific data is not improved when she makes comments like this.
- “there is not enough evolutionary time for all these coordinated changes to have happened by the mutation/selection process”
- “Thus the evidences for common ancestry put forward by various scientists are not as solid as they might seem”
- “The more we learn about our human genome, the more it seems to be brilliantly and uniquely designed.”
- “I would say that unless somebody figures out how to go back in time, we will never be able to establish for certain that we arose from an evolutionary process”
- “I actually believe that we will someday falsify Darwinism, which will be great because then the question arises, “If it didn’t happen by a gradual process, how did it happen?””
- “It used to be said that only two to three percent of our genome coded for protein, and the rest was junk, speaking loosely. Well, the ENCODE project is revealing that this is a complete falsehood”
- (interview with Ann Gauger) "Regarding a couple of Swawidass’s points, Sarah Chaffee asks at one point, “Are those serious arguments?” “No, they’re not.” “Scary arguments?” You can hear Dr. Gauger suppress a laugh. “No.”
If she is “honestly wrong” in her statements about well known and settled science, then she is unreliable at best, and should be identified as such. If I were to make these statements, especially here on Biologos, I would be called out for scientific ignorance. Given her professional position, and given the influence she has, holding her to at least the same standard of accuracy, is entirely reasonable. Given your aim is to “serve the Church with an honest account of the science, regardless of our personal positions”, surely it is reasonable to expect her to do the same.
You wouldn’t accept that kind of dismissive comment if it were aimed at the concerns of someone who is ID or YEC. The fact is I am not the only person who has expressed concern with your approach. Look at this comment.
It’s clear that you’re coming across as rather one sided (to put it mildly), to more than one person. For example, you called out Dennis, saying he “presented a selective account that fit with his personal theological views”. But you haven’t done the same with Ann.