Yes, but the author of this article does not have the necessary expertise to really contribute much to the argument. While he is a Ph.D., his specialty is neither genetics nor organismal development. It would be sort of like allowing me, with my doctorate in molecular genetics to design the invasion strategy in Iraq. I can have fact-based suggestions, but my level of expertise in that area does not approach what would be required to have a realistic chance of success! In my mind however, there has never been a conflict between the concepts of intelligent design and evolution. I simply regard evolution as a possible mechanism by which the intelligent design was achieved.
He is must be a scientist!
He has a PHD! – but so did Martin L. King.
Wow! It's nice for this lay reader of books on paleontology to find herself in the company of someone with a doctorate in molecular genetics, who thinks as I have thought for some time: that evolution IS intelligent design. Evolution doesn't challenge the existence of God. It challenges the assumptions of men who presume to tell the rest of us how God does and does not work His miracles.
Well, I wasn't talking about this article in particular...but let's consider it, since it's the topic at hand. If what you say is true, then shouldn't his ideas be faulty? And if they are in fact faulty, shouldn't they be easy to refute?
If the man is so unqualified as to even frame a hypothesis, this fact should get him quickly shot down in peer review. If he actually can frame an idea coherent within the current state of the science, then let that idea take its lumps in the rough-and-tumble of peer review and reproducible results.
Ah, but there's the rub...this is a highly theoretical discipline we're talking about. It's difficult to design an experiment to investigate the origin of speciation, after all. That sort of situation lends itself quite readily to professors playing "battling credentials."
"I simply regard evolution as a possible mechanism by which the intelligent design was achieved."
Well said. And an exceedingly fine and beautiful mechanism it is. As a corollary, the Creationists believe God is not omnipotent or omnicient enough to use evolution as a mechanism, but must by their definition create everything magically and without possible rational explanation. That is, we are required to remain ignorant of the mechanisms of creation, else their God would dissolve.