Is there anything in the article that is factually incorrect?
I don't know.
I guess we'll find out for sure when it appears in peer reviewed scientific journals & the MSM (haha).
Yes, This part
"Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added)".
This article is taking his quote out of context to suggest Crick (One of the greatest scientist of the 20th Century) believes in / supports ID
Here is the whole thing
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
Not at all what this article presents it to be.
Now how strong can your position be if in order to prop it up you have to LIE and take a dead man's quotes out of context?
Do Creationist / IDers have any shame?
Yes, quite a lot. Most interestingly for me, the notion that 4 base pairs is, in some manner, the "most efficient" way to represent data. I have been an avid collector of such arguments ever since I was in college, and I can attest that the matter is hardly settled. The most entertaining paper on this subject that I know of, dates back to the 70's, coming out of the memory-i/o chip size reduction races, and postulates that the perfect representational base to compromise the cost of storage with the cost of transmission, is e (2.71828....).
Which makes balanced trinary, not quat, the most efficient realizable representational base. This is a pretty open question today, but I have never seen quat even put on the table as a possible answer.