Bill, I have just read your link. The writer has largely given examples of arguments that informed and especially scientifically qualified creationists do not use. Certainly the less informed might use such arguments, and they are the sort that the likes of Dawkins likes to engage. Some of the other points raised might have merit in defending Darwinism inasmuch as why it might not be false , but none of it gave any reason why it should be regarded as fact. I have no intention of a detailed response unless you actually raise them yourself rather than just give links.