Hi judge,
I fail to see how either of those supports the idea that creationism finds hypermutation, natural selection, or allele frequencies or any other measure of genetic change over time more relevant than the theory of evolution.
The first paragraph suggesting that Darwin proposed a lower to higher scheme of evolution is unclear to me from my reading of the Origin of Species...though some of the terminology used by Darwin and his contemporaries would today be taken as offensive..much like the reaction you would probably get in New York City if you called an Afro American a negro. In any case, besides there being no support for degeneration I still fail to see how this supports your initial premise.
The second passage makes a false assertion, that artificial selection works in a way unrelated to natural selection...and then does not support the assertion...the rest goes on to point out that Darwin and most of his contemporaries did not know anything about the mechanisms of heredity i.e. genetics and then goes on to ignore the fact that there has been over 150 years of research since the publication of the Origin of Species where scientists did know about heredity.
Again, I fail to see how any of this supports creationism or the premise that creationist interpretation somehow relies on mutation or natural selection at all.