(Speaking on the one hand as a numbskull and on the other as a lame dead dog granted a seat at the King's table on someone else's account)
Implicit in the evidence, my FRiend, and inferred in the interpretation. You have two kinds of creationists: one the evolutionary creationist, and the other the Biblical kind. How would you interpret the motives and sequences of an automobile collision, an unspecified few days after the wrecks and debris are long gone, and having only the skid marks on the pavement as your guide?
That's kind of like what these paleontologists were doing, in their imaginative reconstruction, with the reporter labelling their amplified theorizing as fact.
But I do kind of like their discovery and description of the evidence of the "skid mark"/fossil, leaving out Historical Geology (Lamarckian) and just sticking with fact now observable. (I'm not sure I answered your question --)