If memory serves, Stephen Gould and others like him have made that same basic claim; the idea of selection being an agency of stasis is fairly common and nobody on top of such studies disputes it.
My approach to problem solving (and beliefs) is pragmatic, typical of an engineer. The only "authorities" I care about are those whose predictions seem to fall in line with reality. The idea of natural selection seems very logical and seems to explain why some changes are successful and others aren't.
So I have no idea who Gould is. Or the other "authorities" cited on the website. They're irrelevant to me.
But the website cites the "what use is part of a wing" argument as a proof. This argument falls on its face right out of the chute. Part of a wing might enable a hunter to stay in the air slightly longer on a jump across a ditch, for one example. This would give an advantage in chasing prey, hence enhancing survivability.
Perhaps the website author is merely a poor writer. Or perhaps the use of overly long sentences, excessive prepositional phrases and obfuscatory language are key props to an easily refutable argument.
At any rate, while Bishop Usher applied a scholarly approach, there's a heck of a lot of evidence that his basic fact set was a little limited.
And only an idiot would say the theory of evolution, if it is true, proves there is no God. It doesn't say anything about God.