Hey, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about the article, OK?
LOL... Well, what do you expect me to do? Calling it "non-traditional scholarship" would be a bit too subtle, I'd think.
I agree with WildHorseCrash. The information in the article is extremely outdated, even by creationist standards. Each point has been clearly refuted and cited by some of the hard core evolution posters here before. It's a rehash of some very outdated and misleading information.