I agree with them on the point that ID/Creation is not science, it is religion. No matter how wrong Darwin may be, it is only a theory. "In the beginning", is faith. I see no conflict between the two.
"I agree with them on the point that ID/Creation is not science, it is religion."
I concur.
The Creation account of the Bible is inspired poetry meant to convey the greater meaning of God's infinite power of creation to a simple people in a simple time. In this light, it still has powerful value as an inspired message.
To attempt to literally translate it as modern science is completely insane and a hindrance to scientific progress.
The charts shown in the article mostly consist of the same tired and overwhelmingly refuted arguments posited by the deceptive and/or scientifically illiterate over decades past. (i.e. the inability to add information to genetic code, when in fact genes have been observed to replicate, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument, which only can be applied to closed or relatively simple systems where the entropy can be quantified).