This seems to be another example of the 2 sides talking past one another. The IDers claim that in their capacity as scientist (pseudo scientists), they are looking for evidence of design independent of who or what the designer is. Their opponents claim they are religionists trying to insinuate their God into science and education. I think this is mostly true, but irrelevant. The lawyer for those damned people on the other side is probably motivated by the $ he’s being paid, among other things. We still need to weigh the evidence and arguments presented. Thats why this is a species of ad hominem fallacy. Both sides do this kind of thing and embarrass themselves with fallacious arguments as listed in any elementary logic book.

Questions of incompetent design assume a particular designer, Orthodox conceptions of God. They therefore presume the further beliefs and motivations of the IDers. This is more theology then anything else. When we start answering arguments that are unstated it can quickly degenerate into a junior high school style “debate” seeing who can outshout the other.