Faith in God is just that, Faith. It is not something that can be proved by regression analysis, slide rulers and so forth (although the Shroud of Turin has yet to be explained by you people). And because Faith is not empirically provable, it is derided and disregarded as 'superstition' by the pro-evolutionists on this thread.
Evolution's great conceit is that it is scientifically valid; it can be tested to be true. Scientifically valid things expose themselves to 'falsifiability', or rigorous testing which may eventually show whatever doctrine is being tested to be false.
The good professor in this article seems to want to have it both ways: evolution is superior to teleolgy (the design argument) because it is scientifically provable, i.e. it is falsifiable. But if you want to gain the skills necessary to be able to potentially falsify the doctrine of evolution, he stops you from doing so. In other words, evolution is superior to creationism because it's scientifically valid; but if you want to use the scientific method to test evolution--and thus challenge it's valitity--we're going to stop you because we know it's true, and it doesn't need to be tested.
Imagine a university professor denying a Ph.D. to Einstein because Einstein thought Newtonian physics to be flawed and incomplete. And considering Einstein's theory on the speed of light being constant was recently very seriously challenged, should the American University system have denied graduate study to Einstein skeptics?
Which doctrine is more faith-based, I wonder?
And Religion's great conceit is that cannot be tested?
I can certainly imagine him denying a "personal recommendation." I imagine Einstein dealing with it without recourse to the court system.