I wish someone with a better understanding of philosophy and science wrote this article as it was so poorly executed.

First, he says that we have no physical evidence of evolution. I don't even know where to begin to show how wrong this is. Actually, I do know, I can start in every single elementary biology text.

Second, he is conflating two uses of the word "faith". In his own words, "faith is the belief in something that cannot always be seen or touched." Evolution can be seen. The products of evolution are seen all around us everyday. And not to mention the fact that evolutionary traits have been directly observed as is the case with:

stickleback fish: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/stickleback/

Podarcis Sicula: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.ht...

and many others. And this type of "faith" can make astoundingly accurate predictions about the world which his definition cannot.

Finally, his argument from pain/suffering doesn't include why natural disasters or any other non-human-caused pain/suffering exists. And the argument from Free Will, which eventually boils down to a morality argument confronts serious problems such as the Euthyphro Dilemma.