Francis Beckwith has posted several excerpts from his response to Barbara Forrest in Synthese magazine. Forrest, the crusader against Intelligent Design and logically-challenged scourge of imaginary creationists everywhere, is bound and determined to prove that Beckwith is a creationist, despite the fact that, like, he's not.
One of her arguments is that, since Beckwith thinks that constitutionally-based arguments against teaching about Intelligent Design in schools are unsound, he therefore, must agree with Intelligent Design. Of course, that doesn't logically follow, but Forrest somehow finds it compelling.
I also have a response to Forrest in the works, focused, of course, on her sloppy reasoning. I'm sorry, but it's just hard for me to believe, given the really bad reasoning that characterizes virtually everything she writes, that the woman actually got a Ph.D in philosophy. This kind of thing wouldn't have passed muster in an undergraduate paper where I come from.
But her non-sequiturs are apparently real crowd pleasers at places like Panda's Thumb, don't you know.
Beckwith's blog article on his response is here. Edward Feser's comment is here.