Yes, they cite quite a number of science journal articles and books. It should be easy to substantiate a claim that they twist these sources away from the original authors' intended sense. If they did, they would be doing "creation science" against creation science and the situation would have that parallelism so often claimed by creationists when denounced for their tacts. ("And EVOLUTIONISTS never do this. Oh, yeah!")
The problem thus far is that the claim of symmetry has been like Clinton calling Republicans "the free lunch crowd" when liberalism is the pandering-est political movement going. The real evidence is all evolution. The dirty scholarship is all creation science/ID.
Anyway, I'm sure you'd like to put some flesh on this claim by showing the discrepancies between the T.O. citations and the original works.
Or even their tactics.
It's not so much what is discrepant (although if I have some time I'll look into this as well); it's what contributors like Theobold chose *not* to include that tell the story (like omitting the problems with molecular phylogenies). Here's a good discussion at ARN that you might find interesting:
The last post by MG sums it up nicely. Also, this site: http://www.trueorigins.org/ is full of articles exposing talkorigins' bias, inconsistencies, and errors.
Here is a link that presents a good critic of T.O.
Talk.Origins:
Deception by Omission
Jorge A. Fernandez
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp