I don’t think Ransom’s mention of Hitchens is central to the piece at all.
The point of the article is these sentences:
“What atheists would have you believe is the improbable multiplied by infinity by accident.
That’s why I think increasingly advances in biology and physics suggest that an accidental creation is the most improbable faith of all.
For example, the theory in quantum mechanics called the Uncertainty Principle- which so far is consistent with what has been observed in physics- increasingly suggests that everything remains only a probability until it is actually observed. Without observation, nothing actually exists.
If that’s true- Einstein rejected the possibility of the Uncertainty Principle- none of us really exist nor does the universe exists without an all-seeing being. There is just no other explanation for the universe.”
Ransom sums up the question (and gives the opposite answer) that Hitchens struggled with in his controversial book.
Then Ransom should have picked a different title other than "Hitchens is NOT Great". Beyond his intentions; that does make it a central thesis.
That said; we are all familiar with what atheists claim - and what should be the irreconcilable - 'random' universe.
If he wanted to talk about this world view or even Heisenberg; for that matter; then by all means; he had a story w/o Hitchens name on it. At least per title.
But, while reading the eulogies about Hitchens I get the feeling, more than anything else, of a life wasted on unbelief.
That is quite a negative judgment, and he uses this 'waste' to discuss; what otherwise; could be shared, w/o 'damning' Hitchens - again and worse; post mortem.
All to say and yes; just MHO. . .