Furthermore, the fundamental basis of the article, Kirschner and Gerhart's book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma actually argues FOR Darwinian evolution, just with a modification and explanation of how the steps occurred!
Look, if you're going to rely on others to make your claim, it's best to actually understand WHAT they state, and then not to disagree with them to prove your own point on relying on them in the first place!
This paper is an extremely twisted set of logic to make a jump from a Darwinian evolutionary approach to somehow being "we don't know all parts of the process thus it must be intelligently designed".
I guess jumping to conclusions after mangling your references is par for the course in the ID world, though...
PSS...as usual, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
The author merely states that Yockey’s conclusion (that the origin of life is undecidable) is a classic Evo-avoidance technique in the hope that nobody will notice that divine foot in the door.
As for KG, they are clearly departing from neo-Darwinism, no matter how much lip service they pay to the Temple of Darwin. Not only that, facilitated variation makes far more sense from the standpoint of Creation/Intelligent Design.
Try reading the article again for understanding. Although, that might not be enough, for it assumes that you already understand the NDToE, which I am seriously starting to doubt.
And remember...
NOTHING MAKES SENSE IN BIOLOGY EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF CREATION AND THE FALL!