BTW, regardless of the number of references, the question is -- are those to who he referred being represented fairly? Or, does the author, like some on these threads, pick and choose parts of others work that might seem (out of context) to support the author's assertions.
On a last note. Peer-reviewed papers are "original" works, not some literary compilation with footnoted references to others' works. Peer-reviewed works must contain original research, complete with enough detail to allow others to reconstruct that research. Herein may lie the rub for IDers: there is no such thing as original research in the ID community. IDers rely on parsing the works of others to hunt for tidbits that might support an ID position. This would be why no ID work ever appears in a peer-reviewed journal -- there is no actual research to be reconstructed.
Don't be a snot. Popular articles on science need not be peer reviewed, though they should be based upon peer-reviewed works.
Again, what is your beef? Scroll down to the bottom of the paper and look at the sixty-some-odd references. Complaining that something might be misquoted or misrepresented is moot until you do this… Bottom line.