Amazing what a little curiosity can bring about.
"The more we learn about the microscopic world, the less likely it seems that non-physical (or non-mathematical) principles are needed to explain its behavior."
I do think that you're jumping the gun a bit with that statement, at least as it pertains to this experiment. There are elements of this that are clearly influenced far beyond the natural situation. First, the glass beads must have some effect on the mechanics of the transcription, so who knows yet whether the one pair selection is natural or the result of taxing the net available energy beyond the limit. Second, until you can identify the exact chemical process that causes the increment of selection, it is a bit presumptive to assert that you know what is or is not needed to explain it.
" Perhaps an ID'er would suggest that a higher intelligence designed the chemical structure of RNA to do just what it does. That may or may not be, but, clearly, it's not an hypothesis of empirical science. As a consequence, prolonged examination of such a hypothesis—as if it were a scientific hypothesis—has absolutely no place in a science classroom."
I would say that if you mean only with regard to real-world biological processes such as in the above experiment, I fully agree; it's not relevant to what is being observed (or if it is relevant, there is no observable way of detecting that relevance) but the same has to be said of evolution by the same logic.
One of the stupidiest statements I've ever read. the person who wrote that is simply an atheist pushing an agenda. It's the opposite. The more we learn the more likely it is that supernatural processes were required to design this complex universe which include revealed software code embedded in God's creatures.
Thanks for the ping!