Nope. Just one example: quoting their argument about the second law of thermodynamics.
In other words, there must be a highly sophisticated and fully functional energy management system—a system that enables input, conversion, storage and output—if a tree is to grow or an embryo is to develop. This is the crux of the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics and not some easily discarded strawman.
The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases in a spontaneous process. It says nothing about 'energy management systems', simple or complex (other than that they will always result in an increase in entropy). The author is simply writing nonsense.
Thought you might be interested in this Thermo Debate.
Certainly, one can examine thermodynamics in the limited context that you describe, but it also has application related to the issue of the mechanism and the related processes. One common use of the Second Law is to determine the direction of processes. The various statements of the Second Law all have an implicit understanding of the mechanism. The mechanism can be viewed as the boundary conditions and constraints imposed on a system.
The whole thermodynamic argument is a good example how many have distorted a field based on their bias for naturalism and the evolutionary paradigm. Thermodynamics does pose problems for evolution, though evolutionary advocates fight it tooth and nail.