I took a little glance at her arguments, and got a bit of a headache.
I am certainly not a scientist, but from a quick scan of her arguments this is what it looked like to me.
She is uncomfortable with the scientific process. She does not like it when someone looks at some evidence, comes up with a hypothesis, and then, upon further examination of evidence, the hypothesis is disproven. She seems to believe that all of science is hogwash, based on the fact that not every hypothesis is supported by evidence.
KNOWING TRUTH is much more comfortable than exploring, hypothesizing, finding errors, revising your opinions, delving further, passing your findings on to subsequent generations who will find even more flaws and engage in even more revisions.
So she prefers to KNOW TRUTH.
But I am very interested in what some of our resident biologists have to say on the topic.