No, seriously, I find the theory intriguing. I'm not surprised that such a discovery would be made in an age and society that is reforming its activities around information processing. Although I'm not a scientist, this theory of non-random genetic change through an information processing mechanism makes much more sense to me and fits much better with the evidence, which just doesn't support the theory of random genetic change and mutations occuring gradually over long periods of time.
Well, here is another citation.
The role of mutational and other biases in variation
In reality, mutation is not random in any sense other than in respect of being logically prior to selection (which is not a reason to call it "random"), and the idea of a bounteous Dobzhanskian "gene pool"-- the magic hat from which selection can pull any trick-- died years ago.
Although recent commentaries give the impression that the differences between classic neo-Darwinism and "evo-devo" are being resolved, we do not believe that this is the case. One cannot integrate these two contradictory views. Either propensities of variation exert an important shaping influence on evolution, or they do not. By implying the former, the "evo-devo" heterodoxy strikes at the root of the New Synthesis: its case for the supremacy of selection and its case against any possible internal causes of directionality. Far from being resolved, the controversy has not even been clearly recognized yet.