Yeah, it would be nice if people would distinguish between naturalism, abiogensis, common origin on one hand, and young-earth creationism, creationism, and intelligent design on the other...and not conflate them so often.
But the kid in the article does seem to want to conflate everything into the good-progressive-smart-evolution-progress-science-naturalism bucket and the old-fashion-witch-burning-backward-flat-earth-creationist-dummy bucket.
There are plenty of counter parts on the other side of the debate as well. Sigh.
In my view, the scientific questions are not as important as the cosmology and theology, but I will agree that the distinctions should be made about which are meant when talking about them.
Then I think the proper answer to him is to point that out, and leave it at that. He's presented a flawed argument that starts from an bad premise. Trying to engage his argument by adopting his premise isn't going to help one bit.