I was responding to your generalisation:

"baseless speculations about the motives of others is something we hear from ID critics so often that it's hardly worth paying attention to any more."

There are no such thing as 'baseless speculations' about the motives of the DI as we know exactly what their core motives are. The referenced document tells us in their own words.

But then unsupported exaggerations and/or misrepresentations are something we hear so often from ID supporters that it's hardly worth paying attention to any more.

Why don't you quote the part of that page which you think supports Hayes' claim?

Let's ignore the statement about what the Discovery Institute hoped the showing of the film would accomplish. Sure, Hayes doesn't present a shred of evidence to support his claim, but baseless speculations about the motives of others is something we hear from ID critics so often that it's hardly worth paying attention to any more.

Yep, we have no idea whatsoever as to what the motives of the DI are. No evidence at all we can use to inform our opinions. We've never ever heard them tell us their motives in their own words. Or have we?

My point is that the personal motivations of Ohio board members who desire to preserve the status quo is irrelevant. There are some who have expressed strong public support of the status quo and spoken out strongly against the proposed changes who are also well known for being champions of philosophical naturalism.

In a pure forensics sense the motives of those defending the Status Quo are irrelevant. The burden of proof is on those proposing changes. Their motivations can be relevant. They become relevant when the offered explanation for the proposed change differs from the motivation, because the impartiality of the explanation is then questionable.

In Ohio (where I live) the proponents are explaining that their proposal will improve our children's general understanding of science. This explanation is suspect because staff experts from the Ohio Department of Educational have pointed out so many flaws with similar proposals that it is likely the results would be more harmful then beneficial. It is now up to the proponents to argue that the experts' opinion is biased and their's is not.

Of course it is not as simple as this. There are political maneuvers like stalling, hiding/switching proposals, denying over-the-dinner-table discussions are planning sessions, etc. The motivations and ethics of everyone comes into play here. In Dover, the proponents tried to pass off the last-minute vote to require reading the infamous statement as nothing special. The proponents in Ohio appear to be trying to do the same thing with their proposal.

But the proposal itself is fairly innocuous, as Nick Matzke himself has pointed out.

I see that Nick is being quote-mined again. What was actually said is that the proposal seems innocuous upon first reading. The article then details why the proposal is nonsense designed to teach students that science can incorporate theology. Plus, Nick was only actually posting the analysis of the Ohio Citizens for Science; those weren't his words. This may look like a fallacy to you; to me, as an attorney, it looks like an attempt by the Ohio BOE creationists to violate the 1st Amendment.

What is happening in Ohio right now? Are there atheists or other antichristians on the Ohio school board trying to put more evolutionary material in the Ohio public schools in order to promote atheism or alternative religions?

My point is that the personal motivations of Ohio board members who desire to preserve the status quo is irrelevant. There are some who have expressed strong public support of the status quo and spoken out strongly against the proposed changes who are also well known for being champions of philosophical naturalism. But no one refers to that when discussing the proposals. The only group whose motivations are suspect are those who want to make some changes. But the proposal itself is fairly innocuous, as Nick Matzke himself has pointed out. Apparently they only become un-inoccuous when the motivations of the group proposing them are brought up. To me, that looks like selective employment of the genetic fallacy.

Take a different case where one has strong religious motives to get a certain law passed. Those motivations aren't a good reason to reject the proposed law if the proposal itself is fair for a pluralistic society such as ours.

However, when it comes to the formulation of policy and standards for science curriculum in the public schools, we are led to believe that the religious motivations of those attempting to re-write the standards are all important, while the obvious (anti?)religious motives of the gatekeepers of the status quo are irrelevant. It is bad enough to commit the genetic fallacy, but to compound it by being selective as which motivations are acceptable and which aren't is almost silly. Witness what is happening in Ohio right now.

What is happening in Ohio right now? Are there atheists or other antichristians on the Ohio school board trying to put more evolutionary material in the Ohio public schools in order to promote atheism or alternative religions?

ID critics will object to anything with even a hint of teleology, no matter how compatible it is with Darwin and the findings of modern science.

Some ID critics, few thought they be, have admitted to seeing science as applied philosophical naturalism. However, when it comes to the formulation of policy and standards for science curriculum in the public schools, we are led to believe that the religious motivations of those attempting to re-write the standards are all important, while the obvious (anti?)religious motives of the gatekeepers of the status quo are irrelevant. It is bad enough to commit the genetic fallacy, but to compound it by being selective as which motivations are acceptable and which aren't is almost silly. Witness what is happening in Ohio right now.