BTW, there's probably some very well educated Orthadox Jews or Catholic Priests out there who can run circles around my analysis, but here goes a little study time and perhaps some others can share as well along the way.
I haven't even rad the comments, but the first two paragraphs have set this article up for targeting.
First five words fail to be supported in the article. Neither common Creationist argument canonical form is presented, attempted, nor argued,...merely a rant.
1st rant: Religious bigotry
Creationists typically consider their religious beliefs more akin to a relationship with God and studies of that relationship. There is no premise, faith, presupposition or implied argument that their relationship is based upon religion. They seek a relationship with God.
The comment of Religious Bigotry reflects more upon an outside view of a person who has sought to understand a relationship with God based upon a precept that any attempt to consider God is based upon false premises. The argument is fundamentally flawed and premised with the presupposition that God doesn't exist or that such existance is based upon an ability by man to prove such existence,...no foundational substantiation.
Even from a position of secular wherewithal, which in itself assumes that God doesn't exist but may be proven, the argument of 'religious bigotry' is by definition bigoted in itself towards the subject matter. No room is made for wherewithal or attempting to honor God which might be one object beyond the power of the observer to claim an inate ability to evaluate.