People have NO problem using web sites that are biased towards Evolution as reliable sources, such as Talkorigins and Nobeliefs. It's unfair for atheists to say Creationist sites are unreliable simply because they come to a different conclusion than mainstream science sources do. The foundation of mainstream science is methodological naturalism. That is, supernatural explanations are excluded a priori as possible explanations, since the supernatural cannot be tested. The historical sciences (by which we might understand cosmology, geology, paleontology, evolutionary theory and biological systematics), are motivated primarily by the question "How did this system or object come to be?" These are logically distinct questions than made in operational sciences, where the questions are motivated by the question "How does nature normally operate?". In the first case, when we ask how something came to be, we explain by invoking causal narratives or patterns of events -- employing methods often termed "abductive" or "retroductive" -- to find that set of events that best accounts for the features of what we observe in the present. As Darwin often argued to his correspondents, the theory of common descent by natural selection had to be weighed comparatively, "vis-a-vis its competitors." Explanations are judged by their relative power, and by their consistency with what we know from the present. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex and interdependent structures are however commonly found in nature. Since Evolution is unable to provide a advantage of adaptation in each evolutionary step, and is unable to select it, 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.
Atheists should rather focus on the issues raised, and refute the arguments, if they can.