Curiously enough, he rejects both the Darwinist and ID labels. He claims to hold a "non-historicist" Process structuralist position in biology, while the more popular two options rely upon historical claims. If anybody can explain it to me, please do.
I'm not sure what he's doing now, but he has presented a reflection on Darwinism and John Paul II's Theology of the Body at a Catholic conference a few months back. I'm trying to get ahold of an audio copy, as it dovetails with my own interests.
I don't understand process structuralism. I googled it up and came up with this, "the view that there are deep laws of change that determine some or all of the features of organisms". I can see how this would be ahistorical in the sense that any scientific law would be ahistorical. What his evidence for this is, perhaps someone else can answer.
Personally I don't see why any Catholic would follow these various anti-Darwinians. The Church has repeated over and over that it has no problem with the biological sciences, it only has a problem with those who misuse its findings. It has specifically asked us not to engage in these battles,"we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, which are sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science and which, from the arguments and controversies they spark, lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed. (7)” (GAUDIUM ET SPES, 36)
Darwinism itself is neutral but for those who can't tear themselves away from a nominalistic worldview, the finding of chance in a string of particular causes is a direct challenge to God. I believe Darwin held that view but evidently so do many anti-Darwinians.
The idea of process structuralism is to simply view the biological world as it is, trying to find identifying patterns and themes, without regard to its history or development.
For example, physics is a description of reality that does not rely on knowing the past history of a particle for its usefulness. You classify a particle "oh! it's C12!" and its former history is irrelevant to how it behaves now. It might have started out as C14 and decayed to C12, or it might have started as something smaller and fused to make C12, but the important part is that it is C12 _now_, and therefore, calculations on the motion and interactions of the particle have nothing to do with its life history.
Structuralists usually look at life in terms of traits that are grouped together. Animals that have X usually also have Y. They study the patterns of how animals exist.
This doesn't mean they don't look at evolution, but it means that they don't view evolution in the same way. Sternberg in particular views evolution as a whole-genome idea, not as an incremental process of randomized mutations. He views the genome as having a higher-order structure that is kept intact through change. Anyway, I haven't read this paper yet, but have requested it on ILL, but it should give you some insight into how Process Structuralists (and Sternberg in particular) view biological evolution:
The role of constrained self-organization in genome structural evolution
I have also heard the book Following Form and Function is a good intro to process structuralism, though, again, I am still waiting for it from inter-library loan.