OK, without giving me a cut & past or a link what is it?
Incorrect. It argues from the standpoint of "ok, what has *positive* evidence?"
Why is evidence from homology any more positive than evidence from design?
> OK, without giving me a cut & past or a link what is it?
"The chemistry is not based on handwaving or superstition; each step described is a physically possible one."
> Why is evidence from homology any more positive than evidence from design?
Because a logical inference can be easily drawn, and not easily refuted. The fossil record is in many parts sufficiently clear, long and full that the transition from one distinct species to another can be followed like a film. Whereas the evidence of "design" is wholly lacking. The evidence *for* creationism is entirely bound up in attempts at finding holes in the evidence *for* evolution. It's an intellectual loser of a proposition.