Your Borger guy mentions Darwin at the front of his piece. Intelligent scientists who are trying to take down widely accepted ideas would not begin their revolution by such a direct attack.
There are genuine scientists that, for example, dispute the expanding universe concept that's been generally accepted. But they don't state up front that they're goal is to destroy all the science that's based on an expanding universe. Instead, they speak directly at whatever piece of detail in the science that they can get a handle on, and allow other scientists to make their own conclusions that perhaps this new data overturns the existing paradigm.
Your guy Borger obviously isn't seriously interested in persuading the scientific community. He's writing for people outside of science, like you, who are numerous and will support him one way or another because it backs up your religious faith. He's free to do so, but don't pretend that he's doing real science. Those who attempt to bring ideas such as Borgers into science class are perpetuating fraud, because it's outside of science.
Take your ideas to philosophy class, or religion class, but attempting to hijack science via the Wedge Conspiracy, or the way the leftists have partially succeeded via their Gaia environmental movement should not be tolerated by anyone concerned with the integrity of science.
Thankfully, there is a nearly unanimous rejection of your religious based creation science, and probably a majority of science that rejects the global warming crap, even though it's not portrayed that way in the media. Both creation science and enviromentalism are outside agendas that have attached themselves to science in an attempt to gain credibility. In the end, they will both fail.
It’s not a frontal attack, Borger is merely stating the obvious...that Darwin gave a key role to mutation to explain the origin of species. Borger’s second point is equally valid, namely, that the origin and nature of mutations is one of the most central question in biology. As biology attempts to answer this question, it would be silly to rule out epigenetics simply because it does not fit the neo-Darwinist paradigm of random mutation. Further, if non-random mutation is responsible for even a significant portion of phylogenetic changes, then “The consequence is that we may not be able to discriminate
between common descent and this common mechanism.” If true, this would turn phylogenetic analysis on its head, and many (if not all) phylogenetic evidence of common descent will have to be thrown out the window (in much the same way that the so-called genetic clock is increasingly looking like it will have to be thrown out the window). All of these developments favor ID/Creation Science. Likewise, these developments will increasing become a giant millstone around the neck of Darwinism...which, as you know, is increasing (not decreasingly!) being assaulted on all sides. Indeed, IMHO, pretty soon there won’t be enough left of Darwin’s materialist theory of origins to put under a microscope.
PS Did you also read the following? It comes from a “mainstream” science journal. LOL
https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument