This article has a point: as with the Dover Trial it solves nothing to call the discussion in schools of non-darwinian design arguments unconstitutional. That strategy is going to fail in the end. If design is relevant to evolution it should be discussed in classrooms. It is hard to see how the crooked lawyers hired to do a Scopes publicity stunt at Dover got away with their finesse.
Note that I refer to ‘design’, not ‘Intelligent design’. ‘intelligent’ is a property of a being with mind, and will, while ‘design’ could be a process in nature, but not the usual kind.
But, at the same time, critiques of darwinism lead inevitably to critiques of design, or Intelligent Design. First, the assumption that Biblical Old Testament expresses factual ‘intelligent design’ in history dies hard, but it should die, so that proponents of design can stop their bait and switch tactics.
But beyond that the issue of the origin of life beckons here, with a genuine challenge, not yet fully ‘case logic’, but getting to the edge. The darwinian approach to the origin of life is an obvious problem. But there is a another set of possibilities, if something like transcendental idealism is the case. The discontinuous moments, and the origin of life is one, may only reflect a distinction of phenomenon and noumenon. Which doesn’t quite explain anything, save to show why we so stumped by the causal aspect in time of the origin of life.