Uh, no. I read the whole article carefully, including that passage. I don't see it because it's not there. You're reading things into it because (frankly it's obvious) you don't know squat about the history of these debates, either within science or among conservative Christians.
All this passage suggests is that the history of humans, or even more specifically of Adam on his descendants, did not extend greatly beyond the range of known or conventional history. This is not at all the same as affirming likewise about either the earth or about non-human creatures.
It was standard fare at the time to make this distinction, to argue that the earth was ancient, and life was ancient, but that humans (or "adamic" humans) were not. Very few ancient human fossils had been found by that time. Also none of these creationists were flood geologists. So they were looking at a geological record where human remains were found only in very recent deposits, underlain by vast depths of sediments containing no humans at all, and filled with strange and extinct forms.
You're reading this passage through your modern "scientific creationism" lenses, believing that most of these sediments were all plopped down in a year by Noah's flood. None of these guys writing in The Fundamentals believed such nonsense, or if they did they never said so.
If you read it but it's not there...
Then you must need some glasses, because that is exactly what it implies, and now that I showed it to you, you need ot reconsider.