Evidently, the author has never read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity (for those of you who have never read it, it's brainy, deep, and deeply intellectual as is all of Lewis' work), especially Book I, where he specifically discusses the issues the author mentions in the above article.
Sauron
"Mere Christianty" came to mind when considering this scientist's faltering attempt to fix a source for the moral imprint on our species.
As for astrophysicists, I prefer the analyses of Dr Hugh Ross. Interesting that now, to google on his name, one has to wade through page after page of atheist argument against his credentials first, and his arguments second.
Infomercial "wikipedia" carries Dr Ross as "Creationist" by profession, mentioning only in his bio that he is "trained in astronomy".
There is one of Dr Ross' works (I could not find becasue of google's obscuration) which is marvelous because it is in tabular form, laying out the mathematical designs of the cosmos that make life on earth possible.
I do not divorce evolution from cosmology. If the cosmos reflects design, then we are part of it.
If there was a creator of the cosmos who made it possible for us to evolve, then OK. If DNA was planted here or arrived from another part of the cosmos, and flourished like embryos in a petri dish, then OK. Let evolutionists continue to arge that the elements of DNA are not irreducibly complex. The students they preach evolution to, under protection of the law from debate, will draw their own conlusions in their own laboratories someday.
It seems that hard science is making it much harder for cosmologists to cling to arguments that, in our search for our creator, chaos should be our god of choice.