And I didn't want you to sue me because your sceen or keyboard is ruined ;)
But you're right, reading this sober isn't such a good idea.
Agreed, when the author of the main article has such a strange view of the burden of proof that he makes statements like this:
Why go for natural selection rather than for God? Because God is religion and natural selection is science. Science is seen as fact--and religion as fantasy. If we have a set of physical facts that can be accounted for by a theistic explanation, then you have to have some other information that may cause you to want to dismiss the theistic option. I'm asking "where is the evidence that makes the God option an intellectually untenable one, without bringing in a mere philosophic assumption (namely naturalism)?"