TopHat - I read that article and there are several problems with it, as is the case with most creationist argumentation. First, the idea that the big bang is a theory and that we simply don't know what happened and how, does not even begin to touch on evolution. Scientists will readily admit that no one knows for sure what happened at the beginning of the universe. This is not to say, however, that it cannot be known. As the article pointed out, the original "steady state" theory of the universe was thrown out when it was clearly demonstrated to be false. However, the idea that the big bang happened is not in serious debate. When the theory was developed, the idea that there would be leftovers from the Big Bang was posited. Lo and behold, years later, cosmic microwave background radiation, just as predicted, was detected. Since then there have been hundreds of studies of the background radiation, further proving that the big bang occurred.
However, the article, as is typical, does not put forth any positive theory of creation, it simply attempts (poorly) to cast doubt on evolution, both cosmic and biological. The fact is that evolution has been observed and can be repeated. Evolution, as a process, is a fact, not a theory. The theory is how that process, over time, led to the development of a diverse number of species, from plants to animals to fungi and viruses. All of the available evidence supports the evolutionary path of the development of life. No evidence supports creation. Creationists can only attempt to chink away at evolution through such arguments like "it doesn't seem like it could happen." That's not an argument. If you want to attempt to show that creation has any validity, please show me some evidence.