I am a scientist as well and I happen to agree with him. Adds little? Sniff, if you must.
Reading his pedigree, I predict that all the FR evo-high priests and particularly the evo-space cadets and evo-Trekkies will be writhing in pain on this thread before too much longer.
I too was a scientists, with several advanced degrees and an interest in geology, astronomy, and geophysics. I also agree with the author. Life, once it appeared on Earth changed, this is recorded in the rocks, but in is impossible to determine how life occurred naturally. ( Recall that the best guess for the age of the Universe is about 10^17 seconds) Consequently, there apparently was not enough time on Earth for life as complex as the eukaryothic cell and DNA to occur randomly. Also recall, that during the time that life was "developing" on Earth the atmosphere supposedly changed from a reducing one to a highly corrosive one containing oxygen.
Michael Behe has quite the pedigree as well, and the first part of this post is pretty much a rehash of his argument (without the emphasis on irreducible complexity). I don't see any "evos" writhing in pain over him, so I can't imagine this guy is gonna leave a mark, either.
Frankly, I'm all for teaching ID, in World Cultures class. Because a theory of origins is touted by some scientists does not necessarily make it a scientific theory.
If "evos" are guilty of extending microevolution into the realm of macroevolution without compelling evidence, there still exists the scientific research that continues. ID injects itself into the fray on a point of logic (what are the odds?), coupled with an inference to a designer.