The article is discussed from a more technical viewpoint here with much better expertise than I can offer. (You can read the author's own response to this article here.) But there were a few things that stood out to my unprofessional eye. Namely, a couple of disturbing uses of language reminiscent of Star Trek's Borg: "Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated."

The article begins like this:

Today biologists are beginning to understand the origins of life's complexity—the exquisite optical mechanism of the eye, the masterly engineering of the arm, the architecture of a flower or a feather, the choreography that allows trillions of cells to cooperate in a single organism.

The fundamental answer is clear: In one way or another, all these wonders evolved.

Ignoring the circular logic in the last sentence, notice the use of terms such as "engineering", "architecture", and "choreography". Words that seemingly would be more appropriate coming from a Creationist or someone in the Intelligent Design community. The author is usurping words commonly used in the Creationist community and apparently attributing them to naturalistic processes.

It continues by explaining that nearly 150 years after Darwin first introduced these ideas, they can still be hard to accept. And then explains briefly some of the objections that Creationists have to these ideas. I guess I fall squarely in this category.

The interesting part, though, that I wanted to mention was an analogy by Sean Carrol, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She likens the body-building genes briefly introduced in the previous paragraphs - which the article is about - to construction workers.

"If you walked past a construction site at 6 p.m. every day, you'd say, Wow, it's a miracle—the building is building itself. But if you sat there all day and saw the workers and the tools, you'd understand how it was put together. We can now see the workers and the machinery. And the same machinery and workers can build any structure."

A limb, a feather, or a flower is a marvel, but not a miracle.

Again, the author - in this case quoting someone else - is taking an example that could easily have been used by a Creationist. What puzzles me, though is the logic behind it. It seems to me that evolution is basically saying that the building is building itself. If you believe in evolution, a limb, feather or a flower are miracles because they just "happened" by random processes.

It seems to me as though the author by his usage of wording and analogies is trying to assimilate Creationism into evolution. The "engineer" of the arm, the "architect" of the flower and the "choreographer" of the cells is none other than evolution itself. Evolution is being put forward - albeit subtly - as the "Intelligent Designer" behind all living things.