It's informative in particular for those who follow the creationist “literature”, which often crudely apes the products of actual working science, but lacks the sound methodological underpinnings. In particular, creationism completely misses the process of poking at the real world to develop ideas, since they begin with their conclusion.
Here, once again, we have the evolutionist rebuking others for his own crime. Evolution is one long religious argument. Evolutionists are, if anything, a prime example of folks who "begin with their conclusion."
For instance, Myers recently declared that god didn't create this world because god wouldn't create this world:
We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.
That's a religious conviction that drives science, and it matters.