No, I’m saying that the fact that Coyne drew attention to Turner’s religious beliefs (which aren’t the subject of the book, and which aren’t made to carry the argumentative weight of the book) is an example of argumentum ad hominem – he tries to poison the well at the outset by drawing attention to possible personal associations, motivations, etc. of Turner. Which is standard behavior, unfortunately, in internet origins debates. But if Coyne is allowed argumentum ad hominem, then I should be allowed it, too – hence I pointed out his own lifelong existential commitment to the non-existence of God, which is likely to color his reaction to any vitalistic or teleological proposal regarding nature. The idea that Turner’s science might be tainted by his Christian beliefs, but that Coyne’s atheism has no bearing at all on the way he interprets nature, can’t be taken seriously.
Quite possibly true, that it is not written only for professional biologists. It may even be written primarily for the educated layman. But it’s clear from what I’ve read that it is also addressed to professional biologists; he is hoping to win some of them over, if not to his conclusions, at least to a more open frame of mind regarding certain assumptions they work under. And I think that’s a legitimate aim, if he honestly perceives that many of his colleagues operate with methodological blinders on.