According to this dialogue though, Spetner is about 2 things. A) Demolishing Neo Darwinian Theory as a method for explaining the overall diversity of life. B) Proposing that evolutionary theory be re-constituted on a non-random footing. But he expressly does not claim he can account for the scope of life's diversity with his new speculative theory nor does he consider it necessary to offer a new theory before trashing the old one.
These are traits that I believe will distinguish the new anti-evolutionist concensus that may emerge. Even chinese scientists may join in the fight against Darwin without showing any interest in joining the design inference movement. Spetner steers clear of most of the things that most agitate the strong Darwin advocates and I happen to appreciate that.
I personally, as a theist and non-scientist am against ID as I understand it. It is one thing to doubt that Neo Darwinian Theory can account for biological diversity or be unconvinced by the case it presents. It is another to say that God did not create some mechanism to perpetuate his creative intelligence through time. In fact I'd go the other way and insist that all things in nature do perpetuate creative intelligence. nature is not some dead unintelligent set of laws, it is God's revelation to man through atoms. So why can't biology extend itself using His blueprints?
In his book he had a chapter on convergent evolution and the probability thereof using math and models taken from the science literature. Interesting.
FWIW, I'm a Catholic who believes that God created the universe and the mechanisms He used are up to Him. I keep an open mind about such things because neither evolution nor abiogenesis would affect my faith.
Now if you could create a universe ex nihlo and fill it with matter and the laws of physics, I might rethink my position.