The bad news is that Feduccia has since discovered that ostrich embryos do develop the thumb by about day 14 but lose it on about day 17. Your AiG article is from 1998. Here's a Feduccia press release from 2002 with the finding of the in-and-out thumb, "the first concrete evidence" of such in birds.
And what would be the point of getting a structure only to lose it? Why does the designer find it necessary to fool around with embryos recapitulating the history of their species development?
If I say "the bad news," there must be "the good news," right? The good news is that the controversy rages on which Feduccia raised about the digit numbers being different between fossil dinos and modern ostriches. An ABC article on the topic.
If Feduccia's right, the correspondence of claws I pointed out in post 1745 is a freaky convergence after an earlier divergence. Freaky because it converged so well you wouldn't know bird claws and dino claws are not as related as they look. That ball's still in play, but there's a lot of evidence the other way.