You've noticed that, have you? That's because there's this sort of implicit assumption on the other side of the aisle that there are precisely two possible explanations for the origin of life - Biblical special creation, and evolution via natural selection. Therefore, the idea is that by poking enough holes in evolutionary theory, Biblical special creation becomes the default explanation. The fact that this is a false dichotomy and the fact that there is no such thing as a default explanation in science does not enter into the thought process, apparently. Theories are evaluated in light of one another, and not strictly on their own merits - the accepted theory is the theory that explains the facts better than all the rest, but obviously creationists are not particularly prepared to put their pet theory side-by-side with evolutionary theory, so that we can evaluate which one is really the stronger theory - I suspect that they know in their hearts that creationism could never survive such a comparison, and so they forswear an honest and fair fight between the two theories in favor of what can reasonably be described as a series of drive-by shootings.
That being said, Andrew is much too clever to be boxed into Biblical literalism in creation, or any other variety of universal special creation theory, which, if you drag his counter-theory out of him, I think you will see. For reasons that are largely opaque to everyone else, however, he likes to give aid and comfort to Biblical literalists and their ilk, despite not actually believing in that sort of thing himself.
(What about your vow of silence?)