Good idea but that may exclude some that are scientifically accurate. Could be a bookkeeping nightmare. I would rather have like a set up responses to those few arguments and maybe include some "sample" websites on that prepared statement.
For example:
Your argument xxxx is not considered for this discussion since a bipartisan panel had concluded that the basis for that argument is scientifically lacking and is used repeatedly to distract from more meaningful discussions of evolution. Your contribution is welcome to progress the discussion but not to detract. Thank you.
--------------------------
I know that others have tried different ways to moderate the discussions so I am just throwing it out for discussion.
You wouldn't believe how far we went trying to come to an agreement for civil discourse on these threads. In the end, the thing that worked best was to ignore the provocations and junk posts.
Sometimes very good information is indeed available from a biased website. The problem is that the source itself can become a bone of contention making it impossible to continue with whatever others were trying to discuss.
IMHO, it works best to pick up a unique phrase from the article, use Google and find the same article from a neutral and credible website. If it can't be found at a credible site, then its time to go back to square one and see why not.