It's not important to what Harding's saying on that page.
It certanly is if Harding's planning on preaching to more than his own choir.
Nor is it desperation to say that there's no basis for claiming that Genesis is derived from Gilgamesh. In fact, the suggestion of desperation is itself emotionally charged. Why not leave all of that, and the fallacious literary presumpions, to the side?
Why inject the non-scientific into a scientific argument? Especially in light of the point Harding makes that Henry Morris has done exactly that...
Henry Morris (one of the founding fathers of the creationist movement), is saying that if the physical evidence suggests that events occurred differently than the accounts spoken of in the Christian bible, then the physical evidence should be rejected out of hand.It is said that: "When the evidence contradicts the theory, the scientist rejects the theory. The theologian rejects the evidence." This is certainly the case with creationism.
When Harding wanders off the scientific reservation to make gratuitous and unfounded comments about the literary provenance of Genesis, he fuels the notion of Creationists that there is a religious component to the scientific arguments against them.
How productive is that?
