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."
It's really quite easy to investigate the process of speciation. What's hard is to investigate the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
The only claim of IDers so far is that since they view Evolution as problematic, then obviously there must be an Intelligent Agent that put us here.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. There are many more scientific areas of study that are much more problematic than Evolution, and those problems don't require an answer that "God did it". Litterally any unexplained thing can labeled an act of God.
So how would you go about scientifically testing for the existence of God? Propose experiements.
Be specific.
Nicely put. Full Disclosure, no flame intended: My Oberon! What visions I have seen! Methought I was enamoured of an ass.