Wonder if the author is even aware, as the rest of it looks quite thoroughly researched and without ulterior religious motives.
edit: not strictly Catholic, apparently, thanks Keiferski.
Here, what he is going for is to add 'Agency' back in to us, because the entire Religious Framework of Sin falls apart in a mechanistic universe. They must put some kind of Agency back into humans so they can have 'free will', so humans can make 'choices', and thus be liable for their Sin. You can't have a judgmental God, if the humans he created can't make a choice.
Or - More Sympathetic interpretation. Maybe this guy isn't pushing the Sin/Choice issue, and is trying to go back to the Schopenhauer "Will to Power" type interpretation. But if he is going for this, it would be nicer to call that out a little more clearly.
> Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.
A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.
This asymmetry is well understood and exploited for disinformation purposes (though there's often some collateral damage inflicted on nuanced sources, as you mention).
Johannes Jaeger is one such researcher in this area who has written a blog post about this concern: http://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/pushing-the-boundaries
Quote from the article:
"I've been trying to get my research into organismic agency funded by public funders for years now, without the slightest chance of success. The project is heavily transdisciplinary, trying to redefine how scientists see evolving spaces of the possible, expanding our view of what is a valid scientific explanation beyond strict mechanicism (yet still rigorous and naturalistic), challenging our mechanistic view of organismic behavior and biological evolution, while attempting the impossible task of simulating a whole cell or organism (see below). No panel at any funding body other than Templeton was open minded enough or could muster the transdisciplinary expertise to judge such a project properly and fairly. Also: gatekeepers will be gatekeeping, especially in committees set up by public funders. Templeton offers me a unique opportunity to escape these problematic institutional constraints. Whatever their motives to do this, this project is almost sure to drastically reduce the space for supernatural mysticism in biology rather than justify it in any way."