Not too surprisingly, it seems that Discovery News is misrepresenting the actual facts. Here was what was actually written about the Berezovka Mammoth (Pfizenmayer, E. W. (1939). Siberian Man and Mammoth):

Baron E. von Toll, the well-known geological explore of Arctic Siberia, who perished while leading the Russian expedition in 1903, had covered in 1890 most of the sites of previous finds of mammoth and rhinoceros bodies in carrying out his professional investigations. In doing so he had established that the mammoth found by Adams in 1799 buried at the mouth of the Lena in a crevice of a cliff from 200 to 260 feet high, and sent by him to St. Petersberg, had been frozen in a bank of diluvial ice on the slope of the river. This ice bank was not (as Adams believed and stated in his description of the site of the find) the remains of the old drift-ice whose crevices had been filled with mud. The fissures in the bank of diluvial ice on the Lena, which was far bigger than ours, had, according to Toll's findings, gradually filled with earth from the top downwards, and its upper surface covered with alluvial soil to such an extent that a fair number of the tundra plants were able to take root on it.

Toll concluded that this particular Siberian ice was in no case recent, but was the remains of diluvial inland ice, which once covered the whole world, and then was gradually overlaid with earth, surviving to this day in the Arctic regions in ice-banks of varying extent.

Our investigations confirmed his opinion. They proved that the animal had been preserved in the same way as Adams's mammoth, according to Toll, had been. In both cases the bodies had been enbedded in fissures of the diluvial inland ice. Then when the temperature fell the mud disappeared and the ice in which they were fast frozen had kept them, complete with their soft parts, in a state a preservation through the ages.

Before I arrived at the site, Herz had partially dug away the hill of earth round the body, and so both the forefeet and the hind feet were exposed. These lay under the body so that it rested on them. When one looked at the body one had the impression that it must have suddenly fallen into an unexpected fissure in the ice, which it probably came across in its wanderings, and which may have been covered with a layer of plant-bearing mould. After its fall the unlucky animal must have tried to get out of its hopeless position, for the right forefoot was doubled up and the left stretched forward as if it had struggled to rise. But its strength had apparently not been up to it, for when we dug it out still farther we found that in its fall it had not only broken several bones, but had been almost completely buried by the falls of earth which tumbled in on it, so that it had suffocated.

Its death must have occurred very quickly after its fall, for we found half-chewed food still in its mouth, between the back teeth and on its tongue, which was in good preservation. The food consisted of leaves and grasses, some of the later carrying seeds. We could tell from these that the mammoth must have come to its miserable end in the autumn."

The bit about it being tropical was evidently invented by someone else. I should add that I don't trust the Discovery Institute one whit (because of their other lies), so I'm naturally biased against them. I could be convinced this particular piece of information is true if it came from a more respectable source.

Yeah, Ockham's razor is not always easy to apply. Some people think God is a simpler explanation, others think the Big Bang is. Some people think God using the Big Bang is. (Lemaître was the one first credited with coming up with what ultimately became the Big Bang theory, although he referred to it as the "primeval atom". Lemaître was a Roman Catholic priest.) Regardless, for any of these one then has to answer the question what was responsible for the "creator" (be it God or the Big Bang). Theologists and cosmologists both have answers to these questions, and most people don't find these answers very satisfying. The traditional cosmology answer is that there was not necessarily a creation, with some cosmologists invoking a universe going through cycles of some sort or another (e.g., vibrating 'branes), and others (most notably Stephen Hawking) noting that at a true 4-dimensional singularity asking what comes before the Big Bang makes as much sense as asking what's south of the South Pole. (This one sounds pretty good at first, but a thoroughly true 4-dimensional singularity would seem to require violating certain precepts of quantum mechanics. That said, quantum mechanics and general relativity have never played well together.)