Another strawman argument
speciation was never disputed except for some group back in 19th century. The natural philosophers had been discussing variation and adaptation for 2 centuries before Charles. No doubt one of the Greek speculation enthusiasts had some concept that could be stretched to fit requirement 2 millennia ago. No, I cant be bothered to trawl through library and for some reason, dont trust Google or wackypedia on it either.
Article shows usual faulty argument that shuffling existing information is the same as generating new information. A strong argument could be made that creationists were supporting fast speciation events _long_ before the materialist fanatics decided it was occurring. Goldschmidt with his "hopeful monster" and Stephen Gould with "saltation events" were honourable exceptions. That someone with Goulds standing and firm belief in the one true faith of materialism could consider speciation events happened quickly suggests it is mainstream evolutionary believers that are slow to adapt.
Given the intricate variation generating processes built into DNA (transposons) while also maintaining error checking mechanisms suggests believers in mere random chance generating new information have a belief system that defies logic. But then, this is a "post truth" culture. The shoutiest group is deemed to have won. C'mon ElReg, you normally do better than this piece of histrionics.