issues: 
 * "see that scientific paradigm as conflicting with their worldview." 
 ** No creationist will ever say that.  they believe that evolution is scientifically false.  that's why i made it say, "believe evolution to be scientifically untenable."  you deleted it unfairly, without explanation, sir. 
 * " Biogenesis as a rejection of abiogenesis and other naturalistic explanations for the origin of life is seen as a counterargument to mainstream science." 
 ** No creationist will ever say that.  they believe that biogenesis is a rule of nature, and that it is solid evidence against abiogenesis.  "a counterargument to mainstream science?"  hilarious.  straw man. 
 * "Teleology, that is, the idea that God designed life with intricate and interconnected components for a purpose, and then determined that they were "good." This runs contrary to the empirical model of modern science which claims that, by definition, there can be no empirically observed instance of supernatural influences in nature, nor is there any universalist evaluative norm by which life can be described as either "good" or "bad"." 
 ** That is a flat misrepresentation of what teleology is.  read teleology.  the concept was developed primarily by pagans like plato and aristotle.  i corrected it by saying "nature gives evidence of being designed for a purpose."  you deleted it. 
 * "Such argumentation is roundly rejected by evolutionary biologists who offer counterevidence to the idea often in, for example, accounts of the evolution of the eye." 
 ** This assumes that those accounts hold some validity, while denying accounts AGAINST the evolution of the eye.  i deleted it as pov.  you returned it. 

 Come now, Ec, let's not waste each other's time.