[gore3000]

Mi<" the article remains full of circular reasoning, logical fallacies and other rhetorical failings."

Can tell us what logical fallacies you speak of or is it that you disagree with the article but can not give any refutation of it?

[spqrzilla9]

This is a prime example of the kind of rhetorical hand-waving of the article:

All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input.

Basic circular reasoning. The "words" imply intelligence so there must be some? I'm baffled why this simplistic article impresses you so.

However, it remains that "creation science" isn't.

[spqrzilla9]

Here's another example:

However, even the great Harvard evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, admits that the different eyes in nature are not really related to each other in some simple-to-complex sequence. Rather, he suggests that eyes probably had to evolve over forty different times in nature. Darwin's nightmare has never been solved. It has only been made 40 times more frightening for the evolutionist.

This is actually more of a "fright" for creationists who now have some "intelligence" creating forty different eyes for no particular reason. That different eyes would evolve along different paths strengthens evolution's case rather than the reverse. Bizarre logic from the author again.