I read the entire article, front to back (I read it about a month ago when you last provided the link). However, I am somehow under the impression that the person who wrote this definition is not much of a supporter of Creation Science:
"Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge."
Well the question is not whether or not this author thinks Creation science is science, the question is whether or not he is correct in his claim. First of all, I know of at least ONE evolutionist who changed his thinking to become a creationists (Gary Parker). I do realize that there are probably quite a few examples of Creationists changing to Evolutionists, but this simply does not matter, because the principal is the same. Also, I think the claim is unfair because I think many evolutionists start of with a bias towards a naturalistic point of view.
I promise, I DID read the article and I DID find it fairly interesting.